4 ms·

The commenter said "statistically speaking" to justify part of their point. I am directly challenging their assertion and requesting evidence that they have 1)

The commenter said "statistically speaking" to justify part of their point. I am directly challenging their assertion and requesting evidence that they have 1) actually quantified something in more than a hand wavey manner, and 2) found the (falsifiable) conclusion they stated, based on that analysis. I'm deeply skeptical. People like to throw around percentages and references to statistics to justify their biases, but I don't think the commenter has done nearly enough to motivate the conclusion that the modal Clojure developer is more likely to be a "good engineer" than the modal JavaScript developer.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Next time you have a blocked toilet, and the plumber says it's a problem with 'ABC' why don't you just tell him that's not quantifiable! and then tell him you think it's 'XYZ' that's the problem. If someone who interviews thousands of people and finds a correlation between those who have some clojure experience and quality, I believe him. For the simple reason that most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  If the plumber can explain to me in coherent reasoning why the problem is likely with 'ABC', I'm not going to challenge it. Especially if they don't handwave about statistics they almost assuredly don't have and I have no domain experience in plumbing. That analogy doesn't work. I stand by my point: using words like "statistically" and "correlation" perpetuate biases which may not have a rational basis. In this entire thread no one has explained why Clojure programmers are more likely to be "good" than JavaScript programmers (nor has "good" been defined!). I could just as plausibly state that someone tried to learn Clojure because they perceive it to be a buzzword, just as JavaScript programmers are often accused of playing buzzword bingo with web development frameworks. Empirically speaking, we haven't ended up anywhere. No matter how sure you are of this phenomenon, unless you try to make its observation more robust, it will continue to be a microcosm of the tech hiring industry. Heuristics often belie subtle biases that do not actually have a foundation in truth.
- gaius 8y ago
  most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't. Once known as the Python Paradox http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html Nowadays I suppose it would be the Clojure Conundrum or the Haskell Happenstance

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Next time you have a blocked toilet, and the plumber says it's a problem with 'ABC' why don't you just tell him that's not quantifiable! and then tell him you think it's 'XYZ' that's the problem. If someone who interviews thousands of people and finds a correlation between those who have some clojure experience and quality, I believe him. For the simple reason that most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't.

throwawaymath 8y ago
If the plumber can explain to me in coherent reasoning why the problem is likely with 'ABC', I'm not going to challenge it. Especially if they don't handwave about statistics they almost assuredly don't have and I have no domain experience in plumbing. That analogy doesn't work. I stand by my point: using words like "statistically" and "correlation" perpetuate biases which may not have a rational basis. In this entire thread no one has explained why Clojure programmers are more likely to be "good" than JavaScript programmers (nor has "good" been defined!). I could just as plausibly state that someone tried to learn Clojure because they perceive it to be a buzzword, just as JavaScript programmers are often accused of playing buzzword bingo with web development frameworks. Empirically speaking, we haven't ended up anywhere. No matter how sure you are of this phenomenon, unless you try to make its observation more robust, it will continue to be a microcosm of the tech hiring industry. Heuristics often belie subtle biases that do not actually have a foundation in truth.
gaius 8y ago
most programmers don't try very hard and anyone taking the time to even learn a rarely used language is demonstrating a positive quality that most don't. Once known as the Python Paradox http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html Nowadays I suppose it would be the Clojure Conundrum or the Haskell Happenstance