Why isn't the 'single maintainer problem' a concern with other programming languages? What language DOESN'T have a single organization leading its development? Even worse, some projects (incl. coffeescript) seem to be controlled by just a handful of individuals who can easily be hit by a bus, hired away to do something else, lose interest, etc.
I think the only way to defend against that is to have an open source project, and to have a sufficiently large user base such that someone is sure to take over if the owners drop the project.
I think the strength of GWT is that for some languages/teams, a statically typed language is more appropriate than a dynamic language. And isn't more choice a good thing? Avoid the whole 'this is a hammer, everything else is a nail' approach?
I do agree that some teams choose GWT for inappropriate reasons though.
I would only respond with that in particular, GWT is more than a compiler - it is as much a JRE as anything. So there is more to it. I personally don't see Google doing much public interaction with the development of the GWT compiler. If it's left to Google and its own time then my point remains.
JavaScript on the other hand really doesn't have a single organization leading it's development. Maybe this is an argument to be made about its perceived slow progress. Language design by committee is pretty slow.
More choice is good. Always. But right tool for the job should always win.
I think the only way to defend against that is to have an open source project, and to have a sufficiently large user base such that someone is sure to take over if the owners drop the project.
I think the strength of GWT is that for some languages/teams, a statically typed language is more appropriate than a dynamic language. And isn't more choice a good thing? Avoid the whole 'this is a hammer, everything else is a nail' approach?
I do agree that some teams choose GWT for inappropriate reasons though.