3 ms·

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 t

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

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