[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.