How are programming languages ​​and free frameworks monetized?

Question

Programming

Good time. Philosophical question: I'm trying to understand why most programming languages ​​​​and many large frameworks were made public? After all, logically, if resources are allocated for development, the resulting products should be used with exclusive rights so that the company can enjoy such a competitive advantage in the speed / quality / cost of development based on new tools.
Now the following reasons are visible:
1) expanding popularity -> reducing the cost of programmers
2) the project is being developed with the participation of a large number of volunteers, therefore the project has to be made public
3) finding and fixing errors in ready-made solutions by joint efforts
But they seem at least strange:
1) it is cheaper to hire programmers for a short course of study than to lose a share of competitiveness and, as a result, the cost of your products
2) this argument is not entirely on topic: we are talking about those projects that are developed by specific companies at their own expense
3) the same dubious argument, as the first: you can just as well fix your own bugs as you discover them, rather than sacrificing your invested resources for the small losses associated with testing.
Charity is not considered, off-topic answers are not taken into account.

Answer 1

Excuse me, have you seen many 1C programmers working in the 1C programming language without 1C? I am none. A closed "club of interests" that generates such bicycles that you are amazed.
No one will teach a closed programming language, no one will work on a closed framework, even if they teach. Why teach him, waste time? To then be able to get a job only in company X? The loss of a community is the death of any technology, any language, any OS.
There was such a wonderful axis - OS / 2. I know firsthand that she is wonderful - after all, I worked under her for two years. It was the lack of support that ruined it - there was no software, there were no programmers, there was no community - everyone gradually scattered in all directions. Where OS / 2 is now - no one will remember. And I would give it to IBM in open source - you see, there would be a couple of enthusiasts.
It is unprofitable to sell a product - it can be sold once. It is much more profitable to sell support - you can sell it all the time.

Answer 2

About the monetization of the programming language.
If a corporation stands behind a language, it is going to use it as its working tool to solve its problems.
They have already spent money on the creation of this language. But in order to solve specific problems on it, libraries and ready-made solutions are needed. In one snout, this baggage will not be quickly gained, even if you are Google. You open up to the community, promote, spend money on advertising... and as a result, you get a powerful and versatile tool that really reduces your current development and support costs.
This is even if you do not take into account paid support, training and other Sydney Opera.

Answer 3

1. The language does not need to be monetized. It is created to solve some problem. And indirect monetization is that the language helps to solve this problem.
   
2. Good frameworks also have a purely practical focus. That is, they have already helped the author solve his problem. A framework cannot become good until it is proven in practice.
   
3. But frameworks have additional monetization - training, consultations, books, etc. Someone, namely the author, knows his framework at such a level that he can earn on his experience by sharing it with other people.
   

Answer 4

First: the cost of training (inclusion) of a new programmer in the project is significantly reduced. For a frequent company, they immediately write that it is highly desirable to know the N framework / library and, first of all, consider people who have any experience with it.
Second: solving some kind of plugs, for example, in terms of functionality or performance. Any code from a non-programmer's point of view either works or it doesn't. However, the code written by one person will complete the task in 10 seconds using 100 MB of memory, and the code of another person will do exactly the same thing in 7 seconds and 60 MB of memory. Multiply this by the number of requests per day and we get quite good savings in production on a horizon of 1 year.

Answer 5

With the help of one team with one-sided tasks, normal development for technology will not work.
There will always be people trying to get the most out of technology, like the guy who wrote a javascript PC emulator and ran linux inside it. He did it just for fun. Do you think in a company behind closed doors people will do this? No, they just won't let anyone do it! Just in such non-standard projects bottlenecks of technology open up.
Or another example of a PyPy python interpreter written in python, well, what company in their right mind would make another interpreter for their language in it?
And thanks to enthusiasts making PyPy bottlenecks in the main CPython interpreter came to light.
Plus, the longer the technology (language, framework, library) exists, the more it has been studied and the more typical tasks have been solved on it. And this is the development of the technology itself and what is connected with it.
My imho.