on the python paradox

[Martin Di Paola]

>On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 10:37:39PM -0300, Sabrina Almodóvar wrote:
>>                         The Python Paradox
>>                            Paul Graham
>>                            August 2004
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>Hence what, for lack of a better name, I'll call the Python paradox: 
>>if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively 
>>esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers, 
>>because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn it. And 
>>for programmers the paradox is even more pronounced: the language to 
>>learn, if you want to get a good job, is a language that people 
>>don't learn merely to get a job.
>>
>>[SNIP]

I don't think that an esoteric language leads to better programmers.

I know really good people that work mostly in assembly which by today
standard would be considered "esoteric".

They are really good at their field but they write shitty code in higher
languages as python.

That same goes for the other direction: I saw Ruby programmers writing C
code and trust me, it didn't result in good quality code.

I would be more inclined to think that a good programmer is not the one
that knows an esoteric language but the one that can jump from one
programming paradigm to another.

And when I say "jump" I mean that he/she can understand the problem to
solve, find the best tech stack to solve it and do it in an efficient
manner using that tech stack correctly.

It is in the "using that tech stack correctly" where some programmers
that "think" they know languages A, B and C get it wrong.

Just writing code that "compiles" and "it does not immediately crash" is
not enough to say that "you are using the tech stack correctly".


On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 10:58:09AM -0500, David Lowry-Duda wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 10:37:39PM -0300, Sabrina Almodóvar wrote:
>>                         The Python Paradox
>>                            Paul Graham
>>                            August 2004
>>
>>[SNIP]
>>
>>Hence what, for lack of a better name, I'll call the Python paradox: 
>>if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively 
>>esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers, 
>>because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn it. And 
>>for programmers the paradox is even more pronounced: the language to 
>>learn, if you want to get a good job, is a language that people 
>>don't learn merely to get a job.
>>
>>[SNIP]
>
>I wonder what the appropriately esoteric language is today?
>
>We can sort of think of go/rust as esoteric versions of C/C++. But 
>what would be the esoteric python?
>
>Perhaps Julia? I don't know of any large software projects happening 
>in julia world that aren't essentially scientific computing libraries 
>(but this is because *I* work mostly with scientific computing 
>libraries and sometimes live under a rock).
>
>- DLD
>-- 
>https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list