"1. ["same way"] Netscape had a monopoly, it wasn't injecting JS into a situation where there was already a scripting language widely used on the web and implemented among multiple competing browsers. It was not fragmenting a multi-lateral browser market or web content language ecosystem..."
"First of all, you did not cite market share numbers to show lack of an effective monopoly..."
"Netscape was a monopoly in effect (it's very rare for a real-world monopoly to have 100% of the market)..."
I don't think you know what the word monopoly means. Market-share is entirely irrelevant. What constitutes the definition (the reason the term even exists: what is meant to describe) is not how "big" a company is, but the _exclusivity_ (as in: is anyone else allowed to ENTER that sector of the market). And using the words "effective monopoly" or "in practice/real world" doesn't work as a permission to misuse the term, either. In fact, it does the opposite. Actual real-world "effective" monopolies would be: An entity holding a patent for some invention, the State having exclusive control of force, etc, etc.
Some company being "the only company who is currently doing X" is not a monopoly, as long as anyone else can enter the market.
Dart is probably going to suck, though (and Java-stained ideas polluting its design will probably be the cause). Also, unless Chrome wants to commit suicide, it's gonna keep supporting JS in the current and future versions, so you JS people should put a halt to this soap opera. Pause thy bitchfest.
I defer to your economic terminology expertise, but Netscape did have 80% of the market during a huge growth phase (people extrapolated exponential growth from a few months or quarters in '95 and '96). What's the term for that position?
Whatever you call it, if Google had that now or very soon, it could indeed ship new stuff and "make it stick". Since it doesn't have that power, I repeat that Dart is fragmenting.
No one is obligated to work on extending existing standards only, not try injecting new ones. Doing both without market power to make the new ones stick is going to make a mess in my view. I keep saying this, do you disagree?
I'm the last person who wants to save JS from extinction. If it were cheap enough to kill, I'd do the deed myself. It's not cheap to kill -- quite the reverse -- and the leaked memo's assertions about it being unfixable are exaggerations at best, and betray a significant conflict within Google.
(BTW I agree there's a smell of "Java-stained ideas polluting [Dart's] design.")
If TC39 had a crack at standardizing Dart or putting ideas from it into ES6, everyone would be better off -- even if Google then launched Dart anyway.
Instead, while we in TC39 were working in the open on ES6 (which is past new-proposal freeze), we knew nothing. That is not just missed opportunity, I call it poor stewardship on Google's part.
What is closer to the truth is that nowadays "average" technical people are way more abundant than ever, mainly because there are ever more and better learning sources (books, ebooks, conferences, video tutorials, chats, forums, certification courses, crappy 2-year colleges and good universities, fancy IDEs, super high level programming languages, frameworks and libraries for everything, etc.) The learning curve is not as hard as it used to be, if you want to be an "average" technical guy.
And it's just basic economics that people (and entities composed of people, such as companies) don't like to pay a lot for something which is extremely abundant and available in their area (logically). This is because when humans are in the process of valuing things they're affected by a mixture of need, personal preference, the scarcity of the things in question, and the moment in time when this process is taking place.
I've been a "pawn" "low life" "technical monkey" developer for a while, and I actually began working as a developer from the start with a secondary hidden purpose of studying the ways companies act (because I was already an economics nerd before becoming a developer), and this is the usual result of my observations (plus studying the history of other companies):
- Technical Monkeys with NO additional nontechnical skills:
They're like the average rock drummer who can keep a beat but other than that is not very useful. They will always earn a lower wage, because there's just too many of them out there: they're not especial. Wage is just another price, remember.
- REALLY GOOD Technical Monkeys with NO additional nontechnical skills:
They are exceptionally awesome and productive, and will get paid accordingly, unless they work for a really stupid boss. They're like the really good session drummer that records albums for all kinds of artists, and as a hobby breaks world records for faster drum fills, longest drum solo, etc. He has no other skills but he's a absolute beast at what he does.
- And then there are those Technical Monkeys who are good (though maybe not the best) at the technical stuff AND have really good business ideas i.e. better management ideas than their bosses do. So they can manage teams AND they can speak technical monkey. They're the Phil Collins. They will either earn a good wage or start their own company.
The key phrase is unless they work for a really stupid boss. Because it doesn't matter how smart and ambitious you are if you're working for the IT department of some megacorp and spend more time filling in Change Request forms than doing real work. All you can do is a) quit and go have fun working for a games company (notorious for terrible pay) or b) go and do the same thing for a bank for 2-3x the salary.