Again, I'm not expecting that everybody who does this is like this, but I've seen it enough that it is a pretty strong negative warning signal.
Again, I'm not expecting that everybody who does this is like this, but I've seen it enough that it is a pretty strong negative warning signal.
That seems like a less dubious motive.
I would go so far as to say many of the people I've encountered who push back on "abstractions" and keep talking about how programming is "about solving problems" are the ones who allow the codebase to slowly go to shit in the name of features, and progress eventually grinds to a halt until a big rewrite. And in my experience, there are _way_ more of these types of people than the ones over-abstracting. Or it's possible my last company was just skewed toward that culture.
Either way, I've only known a couple people who seem to balance these concerns well and they are the best programmers I know.
That being said, I've generally found people who are obsessed over a single "technological thing" at work (language type, language, framework, OOP dev principles) rarely produce anything of value. They're usually on a mission to prove themselves right at any cost. Flexibility and ingenuity are the keys to a productive dev career.
That being said I wish there were more devs obsessed with mutable state. Some problems are inherently mutable, and trying to make them immutable doesn't actually get rid of the state, it just pushes it around awkwardly. Classes, for as much hate as they get (mostly deserved IMO), are a godsend for those types of problems. And while they're helpful, stateful programming is still extremely hard. I really wish there was more innovation in this area.