> and effectively making it even LESS maintainable now that it's in some new niche language with a vastly smaller dev pool
How is any language supposed to grow if you're only allowed to use it once everybody does? Somebody has to be first (and google isn't, not by a long shot)
You should at least wait until there is more than one working/usable compiler for the language if you're going to start making systemic changes to your multi-billion-dollar code base responsible for the commerce of multiple billions of people on the planet. It's a weird move at this point for google to be making(edit: considering go is already supported on multiple compilers).
"It should have two compilers" is a pretty arbitrary benchmark for production readiness. I'd suggest the benchmark be based on, idk, something with any fucking meaning.
So you claim to have a better metric, feel free to share it?
site broken and wont let me reply any more: "shipped into production" is meaningless, compilers are directly related to language community and complexity.
How about numerous companies shipping Rust to production for years? That metric is actually related to risk with regards to shipping rust in production, unlike number of compilers, which signifies nothing.
Many languages had only a single compiler implementation when they were brought into the limelight for critical development so your benchmark would fail almost everything.
How is any language supposed to grow if you're only allowed to use it once everybody does? Somebody has to be first (and google isn't, not by a long shot)