Can you elaborate on these costs? Do you have knowledge of JS's internal needs and resources to suggest a better alternative?
They are not just hapless consumers of a dead language; they actively maintain it and invest in it because it works well for them. The language itself gives them the kind of guarantees they want in their work, and their work on the language and surrounding tooling (among other things) helps them to acquire high-skill talent. I don't know how you can claim that they would transition to another language if they could without having some pretty firm data to back that claim up. Otherwise, I think you're just projecting your own feelings about OCaml onto them.
You seem eerily passionate about JS all over this thread.
Nowhere did I mention that Ocaml was a dead language or a dying language. I simply stated that there are insurmountable switching costs which incentivizes them to contribute to the larger Ocaml community.
Can you elaborate on these costs? Do you have knowledge of JS's internal needs and resources to suggest a better alternative?
They are not just hapless consumers of a dead language; they actively maintain it and invest in it because it works well for them. The language itself gives them the kind of guarantees they want in their work, and their work on the language and surrounding tooling (among other things) helps them to acquire high-skill talent. I don't know how you can claim that they would transition to another language if they could without having some pretty firm data to back that claim up. Otherwise, I think you're just projecting your own feelings about OCaml onto them.