| Rust has a healthy number of committers who are not employed by Mozilla. I will let pcwalton fill in details if necessary. "Proprietary" as in "sole proprietor" is appropriate for a project with zero governance, launched by Google after some incubation closed-source, dominated by Googlers. NaCl is not adopted because it's machine-dependent! PNaCl is not ready. Show me Chrome Web Store games compiled with it and not NaCl, then we'll talk. As I've written before on HN (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2998374, "I've paid my dues"), JS was created by me in a tearing hurry in 1995 for Netscape, the would-be market power that nevertheless avoided a monopoly conviction (unlike the other guys). There is no "quasi-monopoly" here. Someone on HN schooled me on "monopoly" (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2998590). The issue with JS is not "monopoly" in the econ 101 sense. The issue is that JS is more than good enough, and getting better under competition and cooperation in the standards bodies. Therefore it is very hard to displace, and just as hard (if not moreso: a displacing language might be backward compatible) to supplement with a second language/VM in all browsers. You should respond to this technical fact (by which I mean, the circumstance is well-founded in software costs). |
With regard to JavaScript versus NaCl / PNaCl / etc-- I've heard all the debates before, and they are kind of tedious. ECMAScript is a good language for some things, but making it the only option is goofy. I think Mozilla is shooting itself in the foot by not supporting PNaCl, which is the one thing that could potentially save their "boot to Gecko" initiative from disaster. I guess the Adobe Flash and ActiveX experience left emotional scars that haven't healed yet. Oh well. Their loss, Apple/Google/Other app stores' profit.