> Any good developer should be able to pick up any language quickly.I see this repeated very often without support, and I think it should be challenged. In my experience there are cases where it's true, and cases where it isn't.
Actual example: I have met highly competent software engineers who were (primarily) excellent Python programmers. They knew OOP well, they didn't typically over-abstract, but they could still leverage modular code for reusability, they tested early and often, they could dig into an existing codebase and maintain it, they could critically and constructively review others' code, they had a deep knowledge of the Python standard library and various domain-specific frameworks, etc. They were really good at all of this.
But by their own admission, they were crap at C++. They didn't really know memory management at all, and they didn't really get the whole "ethos" of C++. Moreover, they periodically tried (and failed) at picking up functional programming.
Now I believe if they were sufficiently motivated they could eventually pick these languages up. But they wouldn't "quickly" ramp up on a production codebase written in a C++ or Clojure. The idea that they're not a "good developer" because they wouldn't be able to quickly become productive in one of these radically different languages is therefore incongruous to me. I'm sure they could dive into a Ruby or JavaScript or even Java codebase. Or maybe C++ if it was strictly modern, 17+ and avoided raw pointers like the plague. But in general, no. It would
take a lot of time, because some languages come with a lot of baggage that aren't just about the syntax. For someone who had always relied on Python's PIP, for example, the process of vendoring and importing C++ header libraries is already an obstacle.
The reason I'm going on about this is because it seems like received wisdom and is often stated as an accepted aside, but I really think it needs more nuance. Otherwise we run the risk of defining "good" software engineers by what is perhaps just a no true scotsman.
I see this repeated very often without support, and I think it should be challenged. In my experience there are cases where it's true, and cases where it isn't.
Actual example: I have met highly competent software engineers who were (primarily) excellent Python programmers. They knew OOP well, they didn't typically over-abstract, but they could still leverage modular code for reusability, they tested early and often, they could dig into an existing codebase and maintain it, they could critically and constructively review others' code, they had a deep knowledge of the Python standard library and various domain-specific frameworks, etc. They were really good at all of this.
But by their own admission, they were crap at C++. They didn't really know memory management at all, and they didn't really get the whole "ethos" of C++. Moreover, they periodically tried (and failed) at picking up functional programming.
Now I believe if they were sufficiently motivated they could eventually pick these languages up. But they wouldn't "quickly" ramp up on a production codebase written in a C++ or Clojure. The idea that they're not a "good developer" because they wouldn't be able to quickly become productive in one of these radically different languages is therefore incongruous to me. I'm sure they could dive into a Ruby or JavaScript or even Java codebase. Or maybe C++ if it was strictly modern, 17+ and avoided raw pointers like the plague. But in general, no. It would take a lot of time, because some languages come with a lot of baggage that aren't just about the syntax. For someone who had always relied on Python's PIP, for example, the process of vendoring and importing C++ header libraries is already an obstacle.
The reason I'm going on about this is because it seems like received wisdom and is often stated as an accepted aside, but I really think it needs more nuance. Otherwise we run the risk of defining "good" software engineers by what is perhaps just a no true scotsman.