> Deno set out to change that and be something new, but they squandered that chance because it was too risky for their investors
Maybe it was too risky for users? The people with the most appetite for a new start and a new way of doing things are people who are suffering from their existing investment in Node. Making a halfway jump to a new platform with no path to completing the migration would leave their customers running on two platforms indefinitely. It's the worst-case outcome for a migration, going halfway and getting stuck with your feet in two canoes.
By supporting Node, Deno lets customers switch to something new and better and bring their legacy baggage along as well.
It was always going to be too risky for a subset of users, from the moment they announced it. That would not have stopped a project that was not VC funded—a smaller project with less at stake could easily have stuck to their guns and just appealed to the people who were actually interested in pioneering a new ecosystem.
Maybe it was too risky for users? The people with the most appetite for a new start and a new way of doing things are people who are suffering from their existing investment in Node. Making a halfway jump to a new platform with no path to completing the migration would leave their customers running on two platforms indefinitely. It's the worst-case outcome for a migration, going halfway and getting stuck with your feet in two canoes.
By supporting Node, Deno lets customers switch to something new and better and bring their legacy baggage along as well.