It seems absurd to recommend a teaching language without any consideration for the technical merits of the language to me. The argument in the article is among the lines of lets use javascript because it has the most shiny things.
Getting everyone to come to a consensus on what should or shouldn't be included would be very difficult. Then there's also the issue of backwards compatibility. At the end of the day they're opt in so you can just simply not use them.
I've found it quite practical for getting things done, there's a higher learning curve then something like python though. From a career perspective it's hard to recommend anything that isn't one of the top most used programming languages, I'm not sure Haskell or most functional programming languages can do anything about that though.
That's quite an exaggeration, there's already written packages in emacs for lots of programming languages. Just need to add the package to your config.
It has nothing to do with job hoppers deserving more money, it's more that companies don't typically pay those who stick around as well. The job hopper would be more likely to already be making more money, therefore he'd have more leverage going into negotiations. The likelihood that you'd spend ten years specializing in something that is exactly what lots of companies need at the moment is fairly low, especially in an industry where the churn of technologies is high. It's more likely that they'd have ten years experience in a dated technology.
The median pay across the whole US for software engineers is quite a bit higher then the median income for all professions. Or are you referring to a different country?
No approach will ever make everyone happy, but some people would be happy with those deals. It's only natural to want to work on interesting problems and be paid well & I don't think there's anything wrong with striving for that. In an ideal world we'd only work on what is the most interesting to us with no concern for money. In the real world there is an unfortunate flaw where we need money in order to survive. Lots of companies have an even worse issue when trying to recruit where the work is boring and the pay is average.
If software engineers are really so easy to replace then why hasn't it happened? They're currently paid more then most professions so clearly businesses would take a cheaper path if available.
Yeah I'm not sure it's that much of a blessing either. Lots are interested in talking to me, but most of the jobs are a bad fit and it's fairly time/energy consuming to figure out which recruiters have positions that are a good fit.
Exactly by the time you could formally prove the application is correct, the market will have moved on to something different. Right now the combination of quick to develop and mostly correct seems to be more desirable to companies then slow to develop and formally correct. The success of languages like JavaScript and python show this.
Yeah I agree, in theory a large corporation should have lots of money to pay your startup. However in reality being dependent on one big prospect to make or break your startup is a situation set up for failure.
In the interviews I've had so far the 'how much are you making' question comes up at the beginning of the process almost everywhere. It's an obvious lowball play, anywhere that is super aggressive about asking for this is a giant red flag to me.
I think the problem is that individual teams will make decisions that make sense for their own individual team. These decisions may not make sense for the larger organization as a whole (ie. having every team working in a different programming language) as they don't have the birds eye view of the organization.
I haven't (since I'm not in charge of hiring), but I've had to work with multiple people that simply couldn't code to save their lives which was quite frustrating.
I agree the quote disregards the why. Why did your approach fail to get the results desired and would your chances of the desired outcome improve with a change. Some analysis must be done of the situation.
So according to this article, most jobs aren't posted and most jobs are filled through referrals. Even if you somehow make it through the arbitrary automated tracking system gatekeeper you're still really unlikely to get the job from a random application. Any hiring managers here that can share if this matches their experience?
I have yet to see a job that would be entirely play. There is always some amount of boring/tedious stuff that comes with it. I think the people trying to tell me a job is play are trying to sell me something. Family stuff could be work to someone, it's just work you're not paid for.
Yes. In my opinion though a masters isn't necessary unless you want to go into something really specialized like machine learning. Otherwise a bachelors is enough. If you have a choice masters > bachelors, but if a masters would take significantly more time then just get a bachelors. For most software engineering jobs a masters won't be necessary.