Evan Czaplicki, creator of Elm, lays out a compelling explanation for the economics of programming languages: what work goes into creating a new language and ecosystem? How is that paid for? By whom and for what purposes?
You should watch it.
I want to add something about the corporate languages he lists under "rewarding talent." In particular, Evan points out both Dart and Golang as the result of rewarding engineering effort. While I there's some truth in Evan's conclusion that the engineers behind these languages were rewarded for their contributions, I don't think that's the whole picture.
Google was (and maybe still is!) deeply invested in the Java ecosystem. Oracle acquired Sun in 2010 and filed suit against Google shortly after, but the writing was on the wall for Sun years earlier. I suspect Golang was a hedge against Java use at Google. Google needed a language which could fill a similar niche as Java: similar (or better) performance characteristics, garbage collected, and straightforward to deploy. It also needed to be easy to teach & relatively opinionated: it would be a shift from the Java taught at universities (and from where Google sources a lot of its incoming talent), so it needed to scale well to newcomers. Google announced Golang in 2009, a year ahead of the Oracle Sun acquisition and subsequent lawsuit. Rob Pike was a known quantity who had, as Evan points out, already meaningfully contributed to the bottom line of the company and had proven language design and documentation chops.
All of that is to say: while there was an element of "reward" behind both Golang and Dart, both language efforts also made strategic sense for Google.