3 ms·

I agree with the points in your comment, but one can also acknowledge that the popularity of some programming languages is buoyed by corporate sponsorship or th

I agree with the points in your comment, but one can also acknowledge that the popularity of some programming languages is buoyed by corporate sponsorship or the association with a company. Would Rust or Go have enjoyed their popularity without the support of Mozilla and Google? Also, without a generous benefactor, open source languages have to scrape funding together piecemeal from different sources. For example, both Rust and Go have had (or still have) dedicated staff writing documentation for the language. This is a luxury that other languages (e.g. Nim or Crystal) cannot fund or afford. All languages want to attract developers and a key question is: how can languages without a big corporate benefactor attract funding to help grow the language and build related libraries?

kbenson 5y ago
Having a single company with most the control is not necessarily the same as having a corporate sponsorship. A language could have many corporate sponsorships and benefactors. The problem being referenced is having one benefactor with too much control. That problem is fundamental. As soon as one entity gets too much control, it's impossible to wrest control back without their agreement, or a long protracted battle which will hurt the thing being fought over. Nobody is saying keep corporate interests completely divorced, this is just a call to be aware that one interest is getting too much power, whether on purpose or just through increased interest on their part, but the end result is the same. If we care about Rust not being beholden to one entity at the expense of others, then action should be taken now (even if that action is just much increased scrutiny and asking Amazon to please make sure the executive directory position is filled ASAP, and not with someone Amazon affiliated).

3 ms·

I agree with the points in your comment, but one can also acknowledge that the popularity of some programming languages is buoyed by corporate sponsorship or th

by open-source-ux 5y ago

kbenson 5y ago
Having a single company with most the control is not necessarily the same as having a corporate sponsorship. A language could have many corporate sponsorships and benefactors. The problem being referenced is having one benefactor with too much control. That problem is fundamental. As soon as one entity gets too much control, it's impossible to wrest control back without their agreement, or a long protracted battle which will hurt the thing being fought over. Nobody is saying keep corporate interests completely divorced, this is just a call to be aware that one interest is getting too much power, whether on purpose or just through increased interest on their part, but the end result is the same. If we care about Rust not being beholden to one entity at the expense of others, then action should be taken now (even if that action is just much increased scrutiny and asking Amazon to please make sure the executive directory position is filled ASAP, and not with someone Amazon affiliated).