I don’t actually see how Amazon stewardship is a bad thing. Corporate custody has been the case for several useful programming languages, with Java, .NET, and Go being obvious and popular examples. Replacing a core team of advocacy-oriented developers with production-oriented developers might give the project a positive new direction too. After all, a popular, design-by-committee compiled language with RAII memory management that targets LLVM already exists.
If contributors can’t tolerate corporate sponsorship, then there is an abundance of languages with little to no commercial interest, especially those of academic origins.
Just based on the technology side: When using their systems a big thing, seems to be repackage and rebuild existing systems and create a load of new jargon.
The systems seem to be islands, the effect is that at every place they are separated, billing can be introduced.
Everywhere, where new names and jargon are introduced lock-in is introduced.
I cannot see it being good for the medium or long term health.
So the worst case is Amazon makes the compiler or some tool or integration a paid service? Is paying for a well-maintained compiler a problem? Ada, Java, FORTRAN, and (I think) Julia all do this, right?
If contributors can’t tolerate corporate sponsorship, then there is an abundance of languages with little to no commercial interest, especially those of academic origins.