I think this is a really important comment that deserves to be discussed.
You can see this on display in virtually every hackernews thread. Somebody will say something like "I sort of like X, but my problem with it is Y". But what they don't tell you is their experience level, the context of how they came to believe Y, or really any supporting understanding of whether Y is an actual technical tradeoff that needs to be considered. It's sort of an overly grandiose, performative way of saying "oh yeah I tried haskell once, and I got stuck on this thing, so I never came back to it."
As one of the novices just trying to allocate my time, I'm constantly trying to understand whether, say, it's worth really understanding C++ at a deep level, or whether I should just try to learn Rust. All too often, I find this devolves into me scouring the internet for "C++ is ok but the ownership model is so primitive that I would never start a new project in it" and comparing it to "My problem with Rust is that it's still such a nascent language I can't trust it to have the libraries I need". Who are these people, and why are they saying these things? Are their gripes relevant to me? I have no way to know!
Reading some comments on hackernews, I often come up on a comment that seems to be speaking another language. At first I'm intimidated into thinking that there's a secret club of intellectuals that understand exactly what this comment is talking about. But then I start to wonder.. is this actually elite minds speaking in a very high-level way with extremely advanced context? Or, is it just some overly opinionated junior person who just assumes everybody is working on the same web tech stack they are, and speaks with that implicit assumption? When they say "OOP is now considered an anti-pattern, most companies are moving towards reactive FP", do they really mean "I work at snapchat and the ads group I work for is moving away from OOP. My friend at amazon said he's doing the same thing"?
You can see this on display in virtually every hackernews thread. Somebody will say something like "I sort of like X, but my problem with it is Y". But what they don't tell you is their experience level, the context of how they came to believe Y, or really any supporting understanding of whether Y is an actual technical tradeoff that needs to be considered. It's sort of an overly grandiose, performative way of saying "oh yeah I tried haskell once, and I got stuck on this thing, so I never came back to it."
As one of the novices just trying to allocate my time, I'm constantly trying to understand whether, say, it's worth really understanding C++ at a deep level, or whether I should just try to learn Rust. All too often, I find this devolves into me scouring the internet for "C++ is ok but the ownership model is so primitive that I would never start a new project in it" and comparing it to "My problem with Rust is that it's still such a nascent language I can't trust it to have the libraries I need". Who are these people, and why are they saying these things? Are their gripes relevant to me? I have no way to know!
Reading some comments on hackernews, I often come up on a comment that seems to be speaking another language. At first I'm intimidated into thinking that there's a secret club of intellectuals that understand exactly what this comment is talking about. But then I start to wonder.. is this actually elite minds speaking in a very high-level way with extremely advanced context? Or, is it just some overly opinionated junior person who just assumes everybody is working on the same web tech stack they are, and speaks with that implicit assumption? When they say "OOP is now considered an anti-pattern, most companies are moving towards reactive FP", do they really mean "I work at snapchat and the ads group I work for is moving away from OOP. My friend at amazon said he's doing the same thing"?