On 11/12/2022 10:57, Martin Di Paola 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 don't think that an esoteric language leads to better programmers.
When you say this, I interpret it as a theorem, A implies B, but surely nobody would be so foolish to claim such thing, so perhaps you can review your reading or writing. > I know really good people that work mostly in assembly which by today > standard would be considered "esoteric". So, I wouldn't consider assembly esoteric, but I certainly would not try to define esoteric. > They are really good at their field but they write shitty code in higher > languages as python. I bet. If all they know is assembly, then they master very few linguistic abstractions. > 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. A Ruby person who doesn't know C must also know very little about machines and operating systems, so that is bound to failure in C. > 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. That makes a lot of sense. Such person knows so many ways of expression, which most likely implies mastery of linguistic abstractions and expression. > 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. Got ya. > It is in the "using that tech stack correctly" where some programmers > that "think" they know languages A, B and C get it wrong. I agree with that too. > Just writing code that "compiles" and "it does not immediately crash" is > not enough to say that "you are using the tech stack correctly". So true. Good thoughts. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
