Apple: https://developer.apple.com/swift
Facebook: http://flowtype.org + http://hacklang.org + http://hhvm.com
Microsoft: http://fsharp.org + https://haskell.org + http://typescriptlang.org
Mozilla: http://rust-lang.org
Google: The jury is out on this one.
Even though they are enterprises, the term enterprise software often refer to the other companies, who use tech as an aid to run their main businesses.
Think about Box, MobileIron, and many such companies targeted to enterprises and who their consumers are. That is the enterprise software market.
In a previous HN discussion, I wrote to one of the Go designers:
> I disagree with you on the relative complexity of type systems, and, as someone passionate about my craft, I despair Go is merely good not great, due to what appears to be uninformed design decisions.
> You may prefer to write in Go, but you don't work in a vacuum. Your creation is out there, gaining mindshare, and propagating mistakes made half a century ago. As a language designer, you have the power to shape human thought for years to come, and the responsibility to remain intellectually honest. This is the meaning of Hoare's apology. He didn't know better. You have no such excuse.
"So, Go has message passing. Just like Erlang, since 1986.
Only without per-process heaps, which make crashing processes safe. And without process linking and supervision, which helps systems built using Erlang/OTP achieve nine nines of uptime. Instead, it includes null references, also known as Hoare's Billion Dollar Mistake.
But it's not enough to scorn the industry; Go's designers also look down their noses at academia.
A modern, ML-derived static type system? Generics, which would enable the unwashed mashes to write their own `append`? Ain't nobody got time for that — wait, what? Oh, Rust does?
Go's tooling is fantastic, and its pragmatism is commendable, but ignoring the last 30 years of programming language research is not."
Anyway, neither Dart nor Go is particularly "close to the hardware" as they both have fairly substantial runtimes. We're not talking about a macro assembler here, we're talking about a typed programming language. What the compiler does under the hood is largely irrelevant in any language that doesn't make a distinction between register, stack, and heap allocation.
> Simplicity-the design must be simple, both in implementation and interface. It is more important for the implementation to be simple than the interface. Simplicity is the most important consideration in a design.
http://www.matt.digital/comparing-c-nullable-types-and-swift...
Yeah, having done this before, it isn't that easy. You basically have to map NULL to something else, and if that mapping is so direct and straight forward, you actually haven't improved your engineering one bit.
A "billion dollar" mistake is a mistake Google can affod to make :-/