Simple, you don't make VC level returns from a new language, it is a hammer for a construction worker. A good living can be made making a new hammer, but it is

Simple, you don't make VC level returns from a new language, it is a hammer for a construction worker. A good living can be made making a new hammer, but it is not the kind of funds a VC is chasing. They want a much larger return and market. Languages are a special kind of tool, which doesn't have a known replacement cycle, it happens usually based upon need so it is hard to even predict. C# and the .NET languages were the closest we have recently that I can think of, where a corporation took the focus to build a new language, but that was to the end of putting more people on their OS and platform, not to make money off just the language. In the end, languages are not sellable, developers & companies won't pay for a new language. Libraries you can make an argument have more potential to be a fundable product, but in the end, the market doesn't exist where you can see a multiple a VC wants to see on their investment. Library companies are usually for profit and bootstrapped or funded by close sources and not VC. My personal opinion (which has some nuance on this issue). I think I could argue most SaaS products are just an extension library that tacks on some UX or services (e.g. vendor management) to justify their cost which helps turn them into a VC fundable product. Of course not all SaaS fit my point, but so many do. Even things like IFTTT, Zapier, segment etc are just libraries which you never own and they add some component (or automate some process) to justify their costs. SaaS can be super valuable, I am not bashing them, just pointing out how I think people made "libraries" VC fundable.