[gmfawcett]

It's absolutely relevant to the point that "we wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't an effective language" (modulo any disagreements about what "effective" means!). Many languages are heavily used due to network effects (popularity, marketing, community) and platform effects, not solely on technical merit. JavaScript and C come immediately to mind as examples of the platform effect on language selection. (The fact that modern JS transpilers exist merely papers over JS' dominant footing in the Web space.)

[davidw]

I wrote a thing about the economics of programming languages a while back:

https://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economic...

And it absolutely does make sense to view them as products in order to understand their uptake, or why they don't become popular.

[eternalban]

You know, Ford Edsel was a "product" as well.

I maintain that it is a non-sequitur, if not patronizing, to state the obvious facts about software language eco-systems. My perception remains that Go sufficiently delighted a critical mass of developers who then proceeded to create the said eco-system. Mere marketing can not engender a vibrant community.

[davidw]

I don't think those things are obvious to a lot of people.

> a critical mass of developers

How do you reach a critical mass of developers without something that looks like "marketing"?

[eternalban]

Please see my first post in this thread. As mentioned, I do agree that sans Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, and the Google host, the language would have likely languished in semi-obscurity. But if it was an entirely flea ridden dog, no amount of marketing would have afforded it the mind share that it possesses.

[davidw]

Sure, you have to have something that is reasonably high quality for marketing to work, for many products.

[pjmlp]

Your article puts it very clearly, I enjoyed reading it.