10 ms·

Sure, but you're not really disagreeing with me. Idiot proof languages are popular. If you want assured money learn an idiot proof LCD language. In fact, every

Sure, but you're not really disagreeing with me. Idiot proof languages are popular. If you want assured money learn an idiot proof LCD language. In fact, everyone should have one in their tool belt to put food on the table. However, if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art. You will probably eventually gravitate to something more heady (such as the less popular languages) and probably even leave your nice cushy gig to give a professional life in that stack a shot. This isn't, however, to say talented engineers don't exist in lowest common denominator language pools. It's just esoteric/less-used languages tends to cause the best quality of talent to come from them owing from many of their problems. If you can be proficient and productive in a language that you can't easily google a solution for, you're probably an excellent candidate for promotion into the higher echelons. This is a similar phenomenon to editor choice. My anecdata in a little over 10 years of a career has given me the impression that I can tell what kind of developer someone is by their editor. People who use raw vim/emacs tend to better developers. Why? It's not the editor itself. It's that these editors pull no punches and require time and expertise. That dedication is not taught. The easier an editor is to use for a beginner, the more average a programmer tends to be. Again, there are a lot of very talented developers using VSCode or full blown IDEs. But with those editors your signal to noise ratio is quite low. It's anecdata but mixed with the information above you can gather a lot of "metadata" about a person without much effort.

kcb 4y ago
It's like the equivalent of judging a carpenter for using power tools because he's just not dedicated and gritty enough to use a manual twist drill. My anecdata, people who overly focus on language and tools tend to be the worse developers. It's the developers that effectively address the universal problems of writing software people want to use, like api usability, reliability, data consistency, maintainability that have the most props in my book. The best developers I've known weren't particularly attached to any editor, language, or framework.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  > It's like the equivalent of judging a carpenter for using power tools because he's just not dedicated and gritty enough to use a manual twist drill. Serious question: all else equal and without any additional information, between two carpenters who produced the same output in the same time, one with power tools the other without, is there any reason whatsoever to assume one of them is any better than the other?
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Like in the good old days, you take a shot, and let their work speak for themselves, if you got it wrong, well that's life.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      My question was not answered. In that scenario you have access to the work both of them do, so it speaks for itself, and it is equivalent work done in equivalent time. Use or non-use of power tools is the only difference. Do you factor that in your judgement or you flip a coin when choosing an employee or supplier?
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        You misunderstood my reply, it was flip a coin and let their work speak for themselves, after being hired.
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Okay, so this means it's not relevant to you which is... an interesting take. I guess you better operate your business in at-will employment legal landscape (and not feel bad for your employees' families after you fire them left and right this way). For me I would definitely make use of this extra information before hiring. Hiring a carpenter who's able to work with power tools is likely better, unless I need to foresee a situation where they must work without electricity. Even if they are physically fit, power tools can enable a human to do something not possible at all with bare hands. For a programmer it's the reverse, if we assume "power tool" is an "easy" language compared to something like OCaml, or maybe tools like VS Code and Copilot compared to vim. These tools don't help overcome a physical limitation, like the power tools of a carpenter, but a mental one. Being able to set up vim fully to be as productive and produce as few bugs as someone with VS Code, or being able to pick up Haskell without being able to immediately get a human answer your every question, exemplifies the type of higher-level skills and learning capability that is the primary value of a human employee compared to a robot. In other words, in context of this discussion, the equivalent of carpenter's power tools might be much closer to Haskell + bespoke vim/tmux setup than JavaScript + VSC.
- Test0129 4y ago
  > It's like the equivalent of judging a carpenter for using power tools because he's just not dedicated and gritty enough to use a manual twist drill. I think this is an apt analogy. Mostly because carpenters who use hand tools produce more beautiful, unique works of art. When everything you do is on rails (no pun intended) you don't have the flexibility or creativity to make works of art. It's like saying Ikea tables (the equivalent of an idiot proof language) are just as nice to look at and functional as a purpose-driven hand crafted table. I have my doubts, despite using Ikea when I "just need something done". Nice one, being it elucidates the art being lost in other fields (and perhaps all over).
  - kcb 4y ago
    Your analogy doesn't make sense. There's nothing about the programming languages you consider "least common denominator" that lock you into a specific design, unlike your Ikea table. Actually those LCD programming languages are generally the least opinionated in how you use them.
scarface74 4y ago
> Idiot proof languages are popular. If you want assured money learn an idiot proof LCD language. You saw that whole spiel about my desire to exchange my labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter? > However, if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art. I have no desire to be a starving artist. I turn requirements into code so businesses with money will give me some of it by adding business value. I don’t program to create the next Picasso. I stopped considering programming “fun” after doing it for 10 years across 4 assembly languages (65C02, 68K, PPC, x86) before I graduated from college in 1996. > and probably even leave your nice cushy gig to give a professional life in that stack a shot So tell me again why I would leave my “cushy gig” (and it is the cushiest gig you can imagine in any BigTech company)? > you can be proficient and productive in a language that you can't easily google a solution for, you're probably an excellent candidate for promotion into the higher echelons. Every single leveling guideline I have seen at any tech company doesn’t mention “ability to code in an esoteric language well”. It’s all about “scope”, “impact”, “managing ambiguity”, etc. “Coding ability” really only comes into play from junior to mid. After that it is about system design even at the interviews.
- sterlind 4y ago
  > I stopped considering programming “fun” after doing it for 10 years across 4 assembly languages (65C02, 68K, PPC, x86) before I graduated from college in 1996. this makes me sad to hear. I fell in love with programming at age 7 and still love it at 32. I'm extremely fortunate to enjoy something that pays well, rather than languishing at a cushy job that leaves me empty. > Every single leveling guideline I have seen at any tech company don’t mention “ability to code in an esoteric language well”. It’s all about “scope”, “impact”, “managing ambiguity”, etc. “Coding ability” really only comes into play from junior to mid. After that it is about system design even at the interviews. if you're hiring plumbers, sure. it's not all plumbing, though. there's algorithm design, compiler engineering, formal verification, program synthesis, numerical methods, etc. etc. the really effective people in those fields use (or make) weird languages. Isabelle's written in HOL, Coq in OCaml, Agda in Haskell. having a knack for weird languages is a plus for brainy jobs working on that kind of stuff.
rowanG077 4y ago
I feel this is true. If a person has a few esoteric languages under their belt it says a lot about their drive and passion. If anything if I wanted to find talented devs I would put some more esoteric languages on the requirements lists even if we wouldn't use those languages internally. It's a pretty effective filter.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Why do I feel like when you want developers with “passion” you wouldn’t be satisfied with developers who want to put 40 hours a week in and go home?
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    No, it's not about the hours. A developer with passion is more likely to be highly skilled.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So where do they gain that passion if not from developing off hours? If you look at the leveling or hiring guidelines for any major tech company, what separates “senior developers” and up from mid level developers are system design, “handling ambiguity”, leadership, “scope”, “impact” and in the case of Google did you write a messaging app. Even the largest tech companies realize “coding ability” only gets you so far and most developers who want to get ahead would be far better off focusing on the other aspects of software engineering.
      - rowanG077 4y ago
        System design, handling ambiguity, scope and impact are all things that are taught extremely well by just coding a lot. I'm not even sure why you are arguing. Someone who does something more and likes doing it in general will be better at it then someone who spends less time on it and doesn't like it.
        4y ago
jjav 4y ago
> However, if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art. Early in my career I thought of software as art. I was wrong. The very last thing I want in any production software team is an artist looking to express themselves. I want the worlds most talented engineers who want to use consistent proven methods to create solid maintainable code with zero surprises. Code as art has its place, granted, but that place is in the privacy of your own time in a repository with one single contributor. I occasionally still go back to writing lisp for fun, but it has no place in production.
- mlatu 4y ago
  There is the meaning of "art" as "craft" too, and i think this was the intended meaning in the quote you use.
- lioeters 4y ago
  Perhaps it's just a generalization, but I don't think there's such a clear separation between "code as art" and "code as engineering". The very best engineers are like artists, in that they harness their creativity to solve problems efficiently and effectively, often in innovative and personal ways. And artists who are respected in the field of software can use consistent methods to produce solid maintainable code. I wouldn't say "zero surprises" though, I'm often surprised by reading the code of an artist, how they achieve extraordinary results with mundane code that a child can understand. The example that comes to mind is Fabrice Bellard. He's one of the most talented engineers - and I'm sure many of us would agree that his software is a work of art. Well, as someone who has to manage a team, I completely agree that what's needed are engineers who can consistently produce predictable results. We don't want someone who chooses (or worse, creates!) an esoteric language to pursue their art. But I myself am of the latter persuasion, "writing lisp for fun". And having a team of only non-artistic engineers would be so boring. But then again, boring is what we need most of the time.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > The very best engineers are like artists, in that they harness their creativity to solve problems efficiently and effectively As a reformed former dev lead, I wanted a consistent industry standard idiomatic method of writing code and I used a combination of static analysis tools and code reviews to establish a culture to do just that. I don’t want my C# developers who came from Java writing an AbstractFactoryFacadeBeanProxyDecaratorSingleton. “Fun” for me is doing anything except being in front of a computer after hours. Between time with my wife, exercise, learning Spanish and just vegging out, computers are the last thing on my mind. I don’t even have a personal computer anymore.
kaba0 4y ago
I would like to see any form of objective evidence for “if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art”. Even in C that lacks any form of sane abstraction capabilities, people have come up with object systems and what not if they fit a problem domain better. While I think that the language optimum is well past C, there is no significant difference between modern managed languages in any way besides ecosystems — and that is the most important thing.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Speaking of C the canonical way to do it was to create a struct with function pointers and initialize the struct as you would a class.

kcb 4y ago

It's like the equivalent of judging a carpenter for using power tools because he's just not dedicated and gritty enough to use a manual twist drill. My anecdata, people who overly focus on language and tools tend to be the worse developers. It's the developers that effectively address the universal problems of writing software people want to use, like api usability, reliability, data consistency, maintainability that have the most props in my book. The best developers I've known weren't particularly attached to any editor, language, or framework.

throwaway290 4y ago
> It's like the equivalent of judging a carpenter for using power tools because he's just not dedicated and gritty enough to use a manual twist drill. Serious question: all else equal and without any additional information, between two carpenters who produced the same output in the same time, one with power tools the other without, is there any reason whatsoever to assume one of them is any better than the other?
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Like in the good old days, you take a shot, and let their work speak for themselves, if you got it wrong, well that's life.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    My question was not answered. In that scenario you have access to the work both of them do, so it speaks for itself, and it is equivalent work done in equivalent time. Use or non-use of power tools is the only difference. Do you factor that in your judgement or you flip a coin when choosing an employee or supplier?
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      You misunderstood my reply, it was flip a coin and let their work speak for themselves, after being hired.
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Okay, so this means it's not relevant to you which is... an interesting take. I guess you better operate your business in at-will employment legal landscape (and not feel bad for your employees' families after you fire them left and right this way). For me I would definitely make use of this extra information before hiring. Hiring a carpenter who's able to work with power tools is likely better, unless I need to foresee a situation where they must work without electricity. Even if they are physically fit, power tools can enable a human to do something not possible at all with bare hands. For a programmer it's the reverse, if we assume "power tool" is an "easy" language compared to something like OCaml, or maybe tools like VS Code and Copilot compared to vim. These tools don't help overcome a physical limitation, like the power tools of a carpenter, but a mental one. Being able to set up vim fully to be as productive and produce as few bugs as someone with VS Code, or being able to pick up Haskell without being able to immediately get a human answer your every question, exemplifies the type of higher-level skills and learning capability that is the primary value of a human employee compared to a robot. In other words, in context of this discussion, the equivalent of carpenter's power tools might be much closer to Haskell + bespoke vim/tmux setup than JavaScript + VSC.
Test0129 4y ago
> It's like the equivalent of judging a carpenter for using power tools because he's just not dedicated and gritty enough to use a manual twist drill. I think this is an apt analogy. Mostly because carpenters who use hand tools produce more beautiful, unique works of art. When everything you do is on rails (no pun intended) you don't have the flexibility or creativity to make works of art. It's like saying Ikea tables (the equivalent of an idiot proof language) are just as nice to look at and functional as a purpose-driven hand crafted table. I have my doubts, despite using Ikea when I "just need something done". Nice one, being it elucidates the art being lost in other fields (and perhaps all over).
- kcb 4y ago
  Your analogy doesn't make sense. There's nothing about the programming languages you consider "least common denominator" that lock you into a specific design, unlike your Ikea table. Actually those LCD programming languages are generally the least opinionated in how you use them.

scarface74 4y ago

> Idiot proof languages are popular. If you want assured money learn an idiot proof LCD language. You saw that whole spiel about my desire to exchange my labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter? > However, if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art. I have no desire to be a starving artist. I turn requirements into code so businesses with money will give me some of it by adding business value. I don’t program to create the next Picasso. I stopped considering programming “fun” after doing it for 10 years across 4 assembly languages (65C02, 68K, PPC, x86) before I graduated from college in 1996. > and probably even leave your nice cushy gig to give a professional life in that stack a shot So tell me again why I would leave my “cushy gig” (and it is the cushiest gig you can imagine in any BigTech company)? > you can be proficient and productive in a language that you can't easily google a solution for, you're probably an excellent candidate for promotion into the higher echelons. Every single leveling guideline I have seen at any tech company doesn’t mention “ability to code in an esoteric language well”. It’s all about “scope”, “impact”, “managing ambiguity”, etc. “Coding ability” really only comes into play from junior to mid. After that it is about system design even at the interviews.

sterlind 4y ago
> I stopped considering programming “fun” after doing it for 10 years across 4 assembly languages (65C02, 68K, PPC, x86) before I graduated from college in 1996. this makes me sad to hear. I fell in love with programming at age 7 and still love it at 32. I'm extremely fortunate to enjoy something that pays well, rather than languishing at a cushy job that leaves me empty. > Every single leveling guideline I have seen at any tech company don’t mention “ability to code in an esoteric language well”. It’s all about “scope”, “impact”, “managing ambiguity”, etc. “Coding ability” really only comes into play from junior to mid. After that it is about system design even at the interviews. if you're hiring plumbers, sure. it's not all plumbing, though. there's algorithm design, compiler engineering, formal verification, program synthesis, numerical methods, etc. etc. the really effective people in those fields use (or make) weird languages. Isabelle's written in HOL, Coq in OCaml, Agda in Haskell. having a knack for weird languages is a plus for brainy jobs working on that kind of stuff.

rowanG077 4y ago

I feel this is true. If a person has a few esoteric languages under their belt it says a lot about their drive and passion. If anything if I wanted to find talented devs I would put some more esoteric languages on the requirements lists even if we wouldn't use those languages internally. It's a pretty effective filter.

scarface74 4y ago
Why do I feel like when you want developers with “passion” you wouldn’t be satisfied with developers who want to put 40 hours a week in and go home?
- rowanG077 4y ago
  No, it's not about the hours. A developer with passion is more likely to be highly skilled.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So where do they gain that passion if not from developing off hours? If you look at the leveling or hiring guidelines for any major tech company, what separates “senior developers” and up from mid level developers are system design, “handling ambiguity”, leadership, “scope”, “impact” and in the case of Google did you write a messaging app. Even the largest tech companies realize “coding ability” only gets you so far and most developers who want to get ahead would be far better off focusing on the other aspects of software engineering.
    - rowanG077 4y ago
      System design, handling ambiguity, scope and impact are all things that are taught extremely well by just coding a lot. I'm not even sure why you are arguing. Someone who does something more and likes doing it in general will be better at it then someone who spends less time on it and doesn't like it.
      - 4y ago

jjav 4y ago

> However, if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art. Early in my career I thought of software as art. I was wrong. The very last thing I want in any production software team is an artist looking to express themselves. I want the worlds most talented engineers who want to use consistent proven methods to create solid maintainable code with zero surprises. Code as art has its place, granted, but that place is in the privacy of your own time in a repository with one single contributor. I occasionally still go back to writing lisp for fun, but it has no place in production.

mlatu 4y ago
There is the meaning of "art" as "craft" too, and i think this was the intended meaning in the quote you use.
lioeters 4y ago
Perhaps it's just a generalization, but I don't think there's such a clear separation between "code as art" and "code as engineering". The very best engineers are like artists, in that they harness their creativity to solve problems efficiently and effectively, often in innovative and personal ways. And artists who are respected in the field of software can use consistent methods to produce solid maintainable code. I wouldn't say "zero surprises" though, I'm often surprised by reading the code of an artist, how they achieve extraordinary results with mundane code that a child can understand. The example that comes to mind is Fabrice Bellard. He's one of the most talented engineers - and I'm sure many of us would agree that his software is a work of art. Well, as someone who has to manage a team, I completely agree that what's needed are engineers who can consistently produce predictable results. We don't want someone who chooses (or worse, creates!) an esoteric language to pursue their art. But I myself am of the latter persuasion, "writing lisp for fun". And having a team of only non-artistic engineers would be so boring. But then again, boring is what we need most of the time.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > The very best engineers are like artists, in that they harness their creativity to solve problems efficiently and effectively As a reformed former dev lead, I wanted a consistent industry standard idiomatic method of writing code and I used a combination of static analysis tools and code reviews to establish a culture to do just that. I don’t want my C# developers who came from Java writing an AbstractFactoryFacadeBeanProxyDecaratorSingleton. “Fun” for me is doing anything except being in front of a computer after hours. Between time with my wife, exercise, learning Spanish and just vegging out, computers are the last thing on my mind. I don’t even have a personal computer anymore.

kaba0 4y ago

I would like to see any form of objective evidence for “if you're actually a talented engineer these languages will hamstring you and your art”. Even in C that lacks any form of sane abstraction capabilities, people have come up with object systems and what not if they fit a problem domain better. While I think that the language optimum is well past C, there is no significant difference between modern managed languages in any way besides ecosystems — and that is the most important thing.

scarface74 4y ago
Speaking of C the canonical way to do it was to create a struct with function pointers and initialize the struct as you would a class.