It's frustrating that innovators are constantly having to justify "why yet another". Folks should just be able to freely innovate without fear of getting spammed with xkcd#927. You wanna make yet another programming language, compiler, JSON-alternative, container format, or trivial FTP+SVN killer, go for it! This is how we innovate.
Agreed! Even if the new thing doesn't reach mainstream adoption it might still cause change in the mainstream choices - like how redux was inspired by Elm
Secondly I think it's sad that someone building something will be asked to justify their decision in terms of economics. If it makes that person excited and happy to build a thing then I don't think any further justification is needed
Languages are actually very polarized today. I think there's a lot of room for a mainstream language that could be safe, fast, and most importantly, easy. Today's languages are generally two out of three.
Luckily, a lot of languages are exploring that space!
* Vale is blending generational references with regions, to have memory-safe single ownership without garbage collection or a borrow checker. [0]
* Cone is adding a borrow checker on top of GC, RC, single ownership, and even custom user allocators. [1]
* Lobster found a way to add borrow-checker-like static analysis to reference counting. [2]
* HVM is using borrowing and cloning under the hood to make pure functional programming ridiculously fast. [3]
* Ante is using lifetime inference and algebraic effects to make programs faster and more flexible. [4]
* D is adding a borrow checker! [5]
[1] https://cone.jondgoodwin.com/
[2] https://www.strlen.com/lobster/
[3] https://github.com/Kindelia/HVM
[5] https://dlang.org/blog/2022/06/21/dip1000-memory-safety-in-a...