Although Nim could really use a high profile company to become great.

Statements like this make no sense. What can I _not_ do with Rust, Go, Java that I am allowed to with Nim, Python, or C/C++? What license or restrictions on distribution of my work product is prevented with any of them?

Too many people forget or are not aware that good C/C++ compilers used to be commercial and expensive, they were independent in idea only and evolved today to be independent of any commercial entity. If I wanted to develop performant executables I may have had to purchase an expensive compiler, and abide by its license. If anything, languages are far more independent today than they were.

> What can I _not_ do with Rust, Go, Java ... ?

Trust the language not to be driven by corporate interests, for example by bending it out of shape in future when it suits some needs, or drop it suddenly...

...as it happened a million times with languages and other projects from Google, Oracle, Microsoft.

All evidence indicates that projects that are not tied to a single corporation are more likely to keep their soul and their direction and avoid marketing-based decisions.

The Linux kernel is a good example.

> ...as it happened a million times with languages and other projects from Google, Oracle, Microsoft.

Paranoia. Java and .NET are strong despite their corporate keepers. Open versions of both exist.

Languages are not product, and this is something people seem to have a very difficult time accepting.

I don't think it's that simple:

Here's an example of an AWS open source project, written in Go and hosted on GitHub: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/aws-load-balancer-control...

Is your concern that Amazon employing people to work on the open source project will dramatically alter its direction? From what all I've seen I am taking the public comments at face value: Amazon wants to use Rust long term, so they are putting resources into ensuring Rust's long term viability. I think that there are exist few things that Amazon could possibly want that from this effort that wouldn't also be desired by the ecosystem at large. Changing the language isn't something that is done in the dark, the RFC process is as transparent as it could be (although it is not actively promoted to the entire community, which does produce the "why wasn't I consulted?" reaction from time to time) and that process will not be changed to become more opaque.

Rust the project is resilient because although it was significantly shepherded by Mozilla, it's been years since it relied on any single company or even individual for advancing (although there are many people whose contributions are very important).

Rust the language is stable, if "incomplete", as there are many language "features" that are still needed (by "features" I don't necessarily mean "adding new things" as some might be worried about, but rather "making existing features work in more places" which although they complicate the implementation of the language simplify the usage of the language).

Rust the ecosystem has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past couple of years but is still green, particularly if you want to use anything outside of the beaten path trail blazed by hobbyists and early adopters. Writing new crates people might want or bringing existing crates up to production quality requires resources: people, money and time. Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google are four large companies that are providing some of those resources. Lots of other companies and individuals are as well. I see these developments as a good thing.