[hu3]

Ever considered that in 1995 some aspects of Limbo weren't as appealing as they are today and that this played a great deal in its adoption?

For example its CSP concurrency model, similar to Go, was hardly pertinent when common processors were 150 MHz Pentiums with 1 core. Completely different scenarios.

Not to mention Bell Labs had enormous influence on Computer Science at the time so it's not like Limbo had no strong backing either.

[apta]

> For example its CSP concurrency model, similar to Go, was hardly pertinent when common processors were 150 MHz Pentiums with 1 core. Completely different scenarios.

There was always demand for having servers that processed high numbers of requests (e.g. C10K). Just because single core processing was common does not mean that there wasn't need for high concurrency.

> Not to mention Bell Labs had enormous influence on Computer Science at the time so it's not like Limbo had no strong backing either.

In those days there was less fad driven development compared to what we see today. So the effect wasn't as pronounced.

[hu3]

> There was always demand for having servers that processed high numbers of requests (e.g. C10K)

Demand is not binary. In 1995 the demand for concurrency was a fraction what it is today. Not only multicore processing was an extremely rare sighting in comparison to what we have today but also:

1. Internet was accessed by 10% of the population vs today's 80%+

2. Capable smartphones? First iPhone came only 12 years later. There was no such thing as internet during commute.

3. C10K for example was coined only in 1999.

The 20 years between 1995 and 2015 did change the IT landscape wildly regardless of your beliefs.

[apta]

When did Erlang come out? There clearly was interest in concurrency, otherwise, why make a new programming language (limbo or otherwise) just for the sake of it?

Just because multicore wasn't common doesn't mean that concurrency wasn't important. Event loops have practically always been there on widely used OS's.