If it was truly “so many companies” then they wouldn’t be in this situation… reading between the lines here it’s clear Deno was not a successful project.
In the space of such foundational technologies, there’s always been a vast gap between the number of private vs open-source projects that succeed. Even all the way back to proprietary compilers 40-50 years ago.
If they had stuck to being an open-source project, the kind of adoption and mindshare they achieved would have put them among the most successful ever. And I am sure they would have been able get their team paid very well sustainably. The unicorn model cannot fit every single venture.
Some day devs will learn FOSS projects don't survive on good will alone.
But the VC path pushed them to increase costs more than they should. They didn’t need that money to deliver on the mandate of Deno, they had to inflate the vision to some grand cloud solution, which didn’t make much sense.
> then it is a failure as company
Perhaps it shouldn’t be a company at all. Private companies cannot attract the same support as open-source foundations do, since they are for-profit organizations.
Foundations are companies in disguise, with taxes benefits, and there isn't one without industry partners.
Which programming language survives with support contracts, no company sponsorship, and has mainstream adoption?
Of COURSE there are industry partners. That’s not a bad thing!
Ultimately, it was easier for the Node ecosystem to adopt those changes into Node than it was to migrate to a different JS runtime like Deno. Bun would likely not exist without Deno too.
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/a-reprieve-for-es6-comprehension...
To jest, businesses can be successful without sustainability. Instagram definitely was.