|
Generally speaking if you're hiring developers of any decent tier the cost of them acclimating to your language is dwarfed by the cost of them acclimating to your codebase, product, and way of doing things. Not to mention the cost of not making the hire yet, or having to settle for a dumber developer. Programming languages and your basic standard library are simple and trivially easy to learn. What's not, relatively speaking, is, say, "web development," or "core CS knowledge," because you wouldn't want to just hire some database engine developer to start making rails apps (or Go apps in my case) especially if there's no institutional knowledge between them (because then the cost isn't dwarfed). But if you've got one product and if it's pretty big then that's how things work, also I'd expect a company using exotic languages like Scala to expect to bring in developers that haven't personally used it before, because they'd be giving up on huge swaths of talent otherwise. The Bay Area or NYC are the few places you might even get away with the insane idea of requiring Scala experience.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:23 |
|
|
A ha ha, yep, you got the cargo-cult functional programmer (as forums poster rjmccall put it) experience. Thes people have done a lot of damage to Scala and other new languages, it's one of the few good reasons for Go not to have generics.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Also even ideally you're going to have have a logarithmic multiplier on the amount of copying you do. Edit: But if they're strings or byte arrays and they're being used immutably, why do you need to copy them?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Yup.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 08:23
|
|