"When we started Dark Inc, we expected it to be an immediately world-changing technology."
"it was clear that an 8 year old product with no traction was not going to attract new investment."
burnt-resistor 6 hours ago [-]
It looks, superficially, like Rust and Elixir smashed together, maybe with some Pony and C# for spice.
pbiggar 7 hours ago [-]
Hey folks, author here. Happy to answer any questions about Darklang and Dark Inc.
fuzzythinker 5 hours ago [-]
Hats off to years of dedication that wants his creation to shine.
My question is: It says you sold the assets and everything to the new company, yet also personally invested in the new company for years of runway. I don't get it. If the exchange of funds is equal, why not just transfer ownership? If net money out is greater, then why not just transfer and fund. If net money in is greater, why not just sell for the net amount?
pbiggar 4 hours ago [-]
OK, interesting question. Long story short, companies are made of many shareholders with different needs and wants and financial expectations. We can split this into: "what are the needs of the investors of the Dark Inc" and "what are the needs of the founders of Darklang Inc".
Dark Inc investors signed up for a unicorn ($1B company) or better. They didn't get that, and they aren't interested in shares in a small business making programming languages. So they want to shut it down, they're not interested in funding it, and actually would much prefer to not have shares than to have shares in it. They are also interested in their reputations, so having a "soft exit" is better than a hard shutdown - usually that's an acquihire where they get a bit of cash back and get to say "we succeeded" but they also don't want to damage their reputation by shutting down products that are in use.
Meanwhile, the new founders of Darklang Inc are interested in building this cool language, and so want a (possibly small) business making programming tools while continuing to make a living. That company needs money to run until it gets revenue.
It is much simpler and cleaner to sell the assets than to sell the company (many acquisitions are structured this way). It's not just money in vs money out, it's what are the needs of the stakeholders. It's in the interest of both Dark Inc investors and Darklang Inc founders for Dark Inc to sell assets and shut down. Dark Inc investors are relieved of reputational liability and can close their books on the investment, and Darklang Inc gets a clean start.
In this case there's more money in than out - that money isn't just for buying assets though, it's for running the company for several years.
Hope that addresses the question!
fuzzythinker 3 hours ago [-]
Good explanation, thank you.
candiddevmike 7 hours ago [-]
Why did you change your license to Apache? You folks were big proponents of source available licensing, you even worked with Heather on your original one AFAIK.
alice-i-cecile 7 hours ago [-]
Some reasoning is laid out here[0], but I'm curious to hear more too.
Source-available was a hurdle for adoption, and maybe it would have been a problem had we hit it big, but for the last few years we've wanted to get rid of it.
spencerflem 6 hours ago [-]
Thank you so much!
I hope it works out, its clear that you're earnestly trying to improve the world in a small way that you can.
"it was clear that an 8 year old product with no traction was not going to attract new investment."
My question is: It says you sold the assets and everything to the new company, yet also personally invested in the new company for years of runway. I don't get it. If the exchange of funds is equal, why not just transfer ownership? If net money out is greater, then why not just transfer and fund. If net money in is greater, why not just sell for the net amount?
Dark Inc investors signed up for a unicorn ($1B company) or better. They didn't get that, and they aren't interested in shares in a small business making programming languages. So they want to shut it down, they're not interested in funding it, and actually would much prefer to not have shares than to have shares in it. They are also interested in their reputations, so having a "soft exit" is better than a hard shutdown - usually that's an acquihire where they get a bit of cash back and get to say "we succeeded" but they also don't want to damage their reputation by shutting down products that are in use.
Meanwhile, the new founders of Darklang Inc are interested in building this cool language, and so want a (possibly small) business making programming tools while continuing to make a living. That company needs money to run until it gets revenue.
It is much simpler and cleaner to sell the assets than to sell the company (many acquisitions are structured this way). It's not just money in vs money out, it's what are the needs of the stakeholders. It's in the interest of both Dark Inc investors and Darklang Inc founders for Dark Inc to sell assets and shut down. Dark Inc investors are relieved of reputational liability and can close their books on the investment, and Darklang Inc gets a clean start.
In this case there's more money in than out - that money isn't just for buying assets though, it's for running the company for several years.
Hope that addresses the question!
[0]: https://blog.darklang.com/darklang-goes-open-source/
I hope it works out, its clear that you're earnestly trying to improve the world in a small way that you can.
Darklang Goes Open Source
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44290653