> I'm curious, for what reasons are you interested in the source code yourself?
I am the founder/editor of PLDB. So I try to do my best to help people "build the next great programming language".
We clone the git repos of over 1,000 compilers and interpreters and use cloc to determine what languages the people who are building languages are using. The people who build languages obviously are the experts, so how they go so goes the world.
We call this measurement "Foundation Score". A Foundation Score of 100 means 100 other languages uses this language somehow in their primary implementation.
It is utterly dominated by open source languages, and the disparity is only getting more extreme.
Some that might have become irrelevant have gained a second wind after going open source.
But some keep falling further behind.
I look at Mathematica, a very powerful and amazing language, and it makes me sad to see so few other language designers using it, and the reason is because its closed source. So they are not doing so hot, and that's a language from one of our world's smartest and most prolific thinkers that's been around for decades.
I don't see a way for a new language to catch on nowadays that is not open source.
We do believe in open source software and we do want to move the GPGPU market away from fully closed languages. The future is open for discussion but regardless, the status-quo at the moment is a proprietary and dominant implementation which only supports a single vendor.
> I don't see a way for a new language to catch on nowadays that is not open source.
I do note that CUDA is itself closed source -- while there's an open source implementation in the LLVM project, it is not as bleeding edge as NVIDIA's own.
And this is a good point. However, it also has a 17 year head start, and many of those years were spent developing before people realized what a huge market there was.
All it will take is one committed genius to create an open source alternative to CUDA to dethrone it.
But they would have to have some Mojo (hint hint) to pull that off.
I am the founder/editor of PLDB. So I try to do my best to help people "build the next great programming language".
We clone the git repos of over 1,000 compilers and interpreters and use cloc to determine what languages the people who are building languages are using. The people who build languages obviously are the experts, so how they go so goes the world.
We call this measurement "Foundation Score". A Foundation Score of 100 means 100 other languages uses this language somehow in their primary implementation.
It is utterly dominated by open source languages, and the disparity is only getting more extreme.
You can see for yourself here:
https://pldb.io/lists/explorer.html#columns=rank~name~id~app...
Some that might have become irrelevant have gained a second wind after going open source.
But some keep falling further behind.
I look at Mathematica, a very powerful and amazing language, and it makes me sad to see so few other language designers using it, and the reason is because its closed source. So they are not doing so hot, and that's a language from one of our world's smartest and most prolific thinkers that's been around for decades.
I don't see a way for a new language to catch on nowadays that is not open source.