Gazoo101

Without knowing the exact expectations of the people the author spoke to, I'd imagine lots of the misconceptions are on-point.

One personal exception for me was how university (not college) prepared me for my future in software engineering. The courses I took quite often involved group projects of 2-3 people completing work cooperatively. Undoubtedly this was - by far - one of the best and closest to real-work experiences I had during my earlier education.

Compromise, discussion, division of labor, and a healthy bit of experience with individuals who'd prefer to be part of the project credits but ideally do as little of the work as possible.

There's a case to be made to shorten the task time I agree, but as noted in the article, when considering the amount of prep-time needed to pass a Codility test, these platforms already expect this amount of investment for applicants - not that that's ideal either.

I think, ideally, companies should compensate candidates, but I don't see that as a likely outcome either.

> My point (and I think the points of others responding to you) is that parallel programming is not always hard.

Sure, and even more people commenting appear to be of the mind that it is generally hard.

> That's also what the author is saying.

It's not what author is explicitly saying in the statement I'm addressing if you re-read my original comment. There, the author isn't saying that it's not always hard, they're implying that it 'in general' isn't hard.

From your arguments, it would seem you think anything that actually runs in parallel (regardless of whether it programmed as such) can be considered 'parallel programming' and from that perspective, sure, it is super easy. But with that kind of reasoning, you can argue that anyone who only knows how to drive cars with automatic gears is actually a gear-shifting expert and shifting gears is really easy, because it happens automatically for them.

Ah, very interesting!

The fees are coming from turn-key solutions that offer to solve the issues I note in the article, e.g. paid themes or paid plug-ins.

I've made sure to more explicitly motivate the intent of switching to Wordpress being to reduce custom code and on-going maintenance, in the article.

Appreciate the link. I agree that CSS has come a long way. Not sure I agree this carousel covers 99% of the use cases, if that's what you meant?

Regardless, my motivation was to implement as little as possible, as the whole motivation to switch to Wordpress was to not minimize what I'd have to build. I will make a note to detail that better in the future. Appreciate the candor.

The point is to comment on vanilla Wordpress itself. I fail to see how the managed service I'm using is relevant?

Where exactly in the article am I complaining about being charged for having someone manage my backend?

I'm talking about using native Wordpress functionality on a managed service. Yes, Wordpress is customizable of course, but the goal was to consider the functionality provided in its basic form without payment, and which features required payment.

Granted, changing the CSS is straight-forward, but not necessarily for everyone switching to Wordpress.