4 ms·
Personally, the issue isn't learning vs. not learning. The issue is where to put the energy and time that I do have for learning. For example, in my current job
by munchbunny 7y ago
Personally, the issue isn't learning vs. not learning. The issue is where to put the energy and time that I do have for learning. For example, in my current job, the top four items in my list are all about conceptual mastery in a specific domain (cybersecurity) so that I can design better systems. For programming languages, the usual suspects are good enough. The real limitation is the intersection of human behavior interacting with a cripplingly complex technical system, and you can make multiple careers studying just that.
Somewhere down closer to #15 is "learn Haskell," which comes after learning Rust/Go. Learning a "real" functional language would be much higher, but I already did that early in my career.
- nine_k 7y agoIndeed, one does not always need to learn new tools when available tools suffice; the learning energy can be more effectively spent elsewhere. I only meant to notice that there's no impenetrable barrier to mastery of that, when desired. I don't think that to learn Haskell at a high level is harder than to do the same with C++. The latter just had more adoption for last 25 years, for a number of reasons. In any case, some (cursory) knowledge of Haskell improved my Java, Python, and JavaScript quite a bit, and is directly applicable to Scala in many aspects.