5 ms·

I know zero developers who know purescript or elm. That is a hiring problem, especially for young companies.

jdhawk 11y ago
Then hire someone who knows Coffee or Type and teach them Purescript? Its not that hard for developers to pick up a new syntax if they understand the framework and ecosystem around it...
- 15155 11y ago
  Calling PureScript "new syntax" is a huge understatement. I love PureScript (and Haskell, FWIW), but it's a huge paradigm shift from CS, TS, or JS.
alanh 11y ago
I know a few Elm developers. Using a less mainstream language can actually be a boon to hiring. (Isn’t there a classic PG essay on how ViaWeb benefitted enormously from using a Lisp when no competitors did?) > Had our first hire start today who applied because we use @elmlang in production. He rocked it! > PS: still hiring :) https://twitter.com/rtfeldman/status/656238188961226752 https://twitter.com/rtfeldman/status/656238188961226752 Furthermore, I’ve learned so many languages on the job in my career that I am unsympathetic to companies who refuse to believe that people who have learned programming can continue to learn programming!
- kornish 11y ago
  PG has a couple essays directly related to this topic. The first about using a language which is implicitly more powerful than others ("Beating the Averages") [1] and the other is about how using a less common language is a positive selector in the hiring process ("The Python Paradox") [2]. [1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html [2]: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
  - omtanks 11y ago
    Agree on the first. On the second, "And people don't learn Python because it will get them a job; they learn it because they genuinely like to program and aren't satisfied with the languages they already know.". I disagree, I like to solve problems more in Java. I tried several including Python over the years. I'm asked to do something in Python I will but for my money, Java is more readable than Python. It's an acute and false observation that he made. Less common does not necessarily equate to smarter/better/faster.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      This was dramatically more true of Python when he wrote it than presently. FWIW, I've recently been using Python for a job and find it deeply unsatisfying. I'm inclined to think that current-gen Java may well be better; the last time I used Java in anger it was basically a different language. Though to be fair, truly modern Python is also a bit different than what I've been working in.
- smt88 11y ago
  PG isn't God, and he related a single anecdote. I won't believe that argument unless I see current data that's language-specific. For example, I could imagine easily being able to hire devs to work on Go, but it'd probably be really hard to get them to work on Haskell.
  - alanh 11y ago
    > PG isn't God Can you prove that? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, after all. You’re being a bit militant in your pg-atheism. Okay, in all seriousness, you are correct. Ability to hire coders to work in a particular language is a legitimate concern to have. Still, it’s sad to see lack of usage drive, well, lack of usage – sometimes it looks to me like an unexamined assumption, or a self-fulfilling prophecy. To take it back to the land of religious arguments: it’s a bit cargo-culty.
    - smt88 11y ago
      I agree with what you're saying, but "low popularity" is just one mark on one side of the pros/cons list. New languages can outweigh low popularity with lots of other important qualities: syntax, tooling, appropriateness for a certain purpose, abundance of libraries, etc. If the new language is easy to learn, that pretty much defeats the issue of low popularity all together! Unfortunately, a lot of new/amazing languages with great tooling are somewhat hard to learn. Again, Haskell might be a great language, but it's daunting to people who only have experience with C-like languages. Go is one of the exceptions, and I think it did that intentionally. Instead of having complex syntax, it just has lots of boilerplate. It's easier to read and easier to learn at the expense of being harder to write and harder to modify.
      - klibertp 11y ago
        > New languages can outweigh low popularity with lots of other important qualities [...] abundance of libraries, etc. How? > If the new language is easy to learn, that pretty much defeats the issue of low popularity all together! If the language is easy to learn it's probably not worth learning. "Easy to learn" in most contexts and for most people means "similar" or "familiar". Of course, there are languages truly easy to learn thanks to their small surface and internal consistency (like Erlang, PicoLisp, Forth...) but they are very rarely regarded as such. > Again, Haskell might be a great language, but it's daunting to people who only have experience with C-like languages. My opinion is that it's their problem, not Haskell's. Instead of "being daunted" they should go polyglot already and stop whining.
lewisl9029 11y ago
Try ClojureScript. There are plenty of developers, especially here on HN, who would absolutely love to work with Clojure/ClojureScript full-time.
- iLemming 11y ago
  I desperately want to extend my exposure to Clojure/Clojurescript. Unfortunately I can't use in my current company. I'm trying to play with it in my own time, which is of course very scarce. I wish more companies realized how amazing Clojurescript is.
Fiahil 11y ago
I don't know purescript or elm, so I can't speak for their qualities. But, I also don't know half the languages cited nearby either (livescript, clojurescript). How can I pick and learn "the right one"? They all seem the same to me, and I think that's the problem.
boothead 11y ago
It's counter intuitive but picking one of these niche technologies means: 1) you'll need less people (better more reusable code) 2) the best people will speak you out. This was very much my experience when I put a Haskell team together, and everyone I've spoken to who has done the same has said the same. It's an opportunity for a young company, not a problem.
masklinn 11y ago
> That is a hiring problem On the one hand there's a smaller pool of people, on the other hand a primary issue in hiring is sifting people who can do the job from a random draw[0], in which case interest and/or knowledge of Elm or Purescript is a huge prefilter, and can draw/poach people who wouldn't otherwise be interested (pg's "the python paradox"[1] talks about that) [0] or worse, you don't get a random section of developers, you get a section of developers currently looking for a job, so the average competence of your draft is below average. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
dllthomas 11y ago
A while ago, I had occasion to look for Haskell programmers, to hand off a project to. Despite promising to offer substantially below market rate, with no chance of a major pay-day, I got quite a pile of seemingly serious applicants for the position, some quite impressive. While the project had some non-profit volunteering good vibes around it, I think the experience is still worth noting for those interested in the ease of recruiting developers of niche languages.

Then hire someone who knows Coffee or Type and teach them Purescript? Its not that hard for developers to pick up a new syntax if they understand the framework and ecosystem around it...

15155 11y ago
Calling PureScript "new syntax" is a huge understatement. I love PureScript (and Haskell, FWIW), but it's a huge paradigm shift from CS, TS, or JS.

alanh 11y ago

I know a few Elm developers. Using a less mainstream language can actually be a boon to hiring. (Isn’t there a classic PG essay on how ViaWeb benefitted enormously from using a Lisp when no competitors did?) > Had our first hire start today who applied because we use @elmlang in production. He rocked it! > PS: still hiring :) https://twitter.com/rtfeldman/status/656238188961226752 https://twitter.com/rtfeldman/status/656238188961226752 Furthermore, I’ve learned so many languages on the job in my career that I am unsympathetic to companies who refuse to believe that people who have learned programming can continue to learn programming!

kornish 11y ago
PG has a couple essays directly related to this topic. The first about using a language which is implicitly more powerful than others ("Beating the Averages") [1] and the other is about how using a less common language is a positive selector in the hiring process ("The Python Paradox") [2]. [1]: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html [2]: http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html
- omtanks 11y ago
  Agree on the first. On the second, "And people don't learn Python because it will get them a job; they learn it because they genuinely like to program and aren't satisfied with the languages they already know.". I disagree, I like to solve problems more in Java. I tried several including Python over the years. I'm asked to do something in Python I will but for my money, Java is more readable than Python. It's an acute and false observation that he made. Less common does not necessarily equate to smarter/better/faster.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    This was dramatically more true of Python when he wrote it than presently. FWIW, I've recently been using Python for a job and find it deeply unsatisfying. I'm inclined to think that current-gen Java may well be better; the last time I used Java in anger it was basically a different language. Though to be fair, truly modern Python is also a bit different than what I've been working in.
smt88 11y ago
PG isn't God, and he related a single anecdote. I won't believe that argument unless I see current data that's language-specific. For example, I could imagine easily being able to hire devs to work on Go, but it'd probably be really hard to get them to work on Haskell.
- alanh 11y ago
  > PG isn't God Can you prove that? Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, after all. You’re being a bit militant in your pg-atheism. Okay, in all seriousness, you are correct. Ability to hire coders to work in a particular language is a legitimate concern to have. Still, it’s sad to see lack of usage drive, well, lack of usage – sometimes it looks to me like an unexamined assumption, or a self-fulfilling prophecy. To take it back to the land of religious arguments: it’s a bit cargo-culty.
  - smt88 11y ago
    I agree with what you're saying, but "low popularity" is just one mark on one side of the pros/cons list. New languages can outweigh low popularity with lots of other important qualities: syntax, tooling, appropriateness for a certain purpose, abundance of libraries, etc. If the new language is easy to learn, that pretty much defeats the issue of low popularity all together! Unfortunately, a lot of new/amazing languages with great tooling are somewhat hard to learn. Again, Haskell might be a great language, but it's daunting to people who only have experience with C-like languages. Go is one of the exceptions, and I think it did that intentionally. Instead of having complex syntax, it just has lots of boilerplate. It's easier to read and easier to learn at the expense of being harder to write and harder to modify.
    - klibertp 11y ago
      > New languages can outweigh low popularity with lots of other important qualities [...] abundance of libraries, etc. How? > If the new language is easy to learn, that pretty much defeats the issue of low popularity all together! If the language is easy to learn it's probably not worth learning. "Easy to learn" in most contexts and for most people means "similar" or "familiar". Of course, there are languages truly easy to learn thanks to their small surface and internal consistency (like Erlang, PicoLisp, Forth...) but they are very rarely regarded as such. > Again, Haskell might be a great language, but it's daunting to people who only have experience with C-like languages. My opinion is that it's their problem, not Haskell's. Instead of "being daunted" they should go polyglot already and stop whining.

lewisl9029 11y ago

Try ClojureScript. There are plenty of developers, especially here on HN, who would absolutely love to work with Clojure/ClojureScript full-time.

iLemming 11y ago
I desperately want to extend my exposure to Clojure/Clojurescript. Unfortunately I can't use in my current company. I'm trying to play with it in my own time, which is of course very scarce. I wish more companies realized how amazing Clojurescript is.

Fiahil 11y ago

I don't know purescript or elm, so I can't speak for their qualities. But, I also don't know half the languages cited nearby either (livescript, clojurescript). How can I pick and learn "the right one"? They all seem the same to me, and I think that's the problem.

boothead 11y ago

It's counter intuitive but picking one of these niche technologies means: 1) you'll need less people (better more reusable code) 2) the best people will speak you out. This was very much my experience when I put a Haskell team together, and everyone I've spoken to who has done the same has said the same. It's an opportunity for a young company, not a problem.

masklinn 11y ago

> That is a hiring problem On the one hand there's a smaller pool of people, on the other hand a primary issue in hiring is sifting people who can do the job from a random draw[0], in which case interest and/or knowledge of Elm or Purescript is a huge prefilter, and can draw/poach people who wouldn't otherwise be interested (pg's "the python paradox"[1] talks about that) [0] or worse, you don't get a random section of developers, you get a section of developers currently looking for a job, so the average competence of your draft is below average. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html

dllthomas 11y ago

A while ago, I had occasion to look for Haskell programmers, to hand off a project to. Despite promising to offer substantially below market rate, with no chance of a major pay-day, I got quite a pile of seemingly serious applicants for the position, some quite impressive. While the project had some non-profit volunteering good vibes around it, I think the experience is still worth noting for those interested in the ease of recruiting developers of niche languages.