"Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel / yahoo.com> writes:

> Hello there.
> 
> |>And back to your question: Most companies normally hire on skills and not
> on a
> |>special language. Learn many languages (at least 5) find a job and
> |>then convince your boss to use the language you are most productive
> |>and that fits well enough for your task.
> |
> | Absolutely agree with you. Language is only a tool that one uses to
> | solve problems. No company hires a person based on his language skills
> | -- unless the company is run by a bunch of retards.
> |
> | Companies normally look into a person's problem solving abilities.
> | Language is really secondary. Now what language you can use for your
> | projects depends on the amount of freedom that you have -- which is
> | usually less in a big-company setting.
> |
> | Of course, you could always *try* to convince a company why language A
> | would be better then language B -- and you're reasons must be good, of
> | course. It also depends how willing your company is to let you use a
> | language that itself doesn't become the problem. ;)
> 
> Unfortunelly, this is not what Paul Graham thinks it's a "real hacker".
> But I don't care about him. :-)
> 
> I totally agree with you on the point that people wants people that solves
> its problems, not with a language skills, but with their brains.
> 
> Some guys can be *really* good on some languages, but if they don't are
> smart enought to see that in some cases one language are better for a kind
> of problem than their beloved one.
> 
> The sad thing is that they start to call everyone that don't uses the XYZ
> language as loosers. And they miss a good point to make some good friends
> and talk with some good professional with this kind of attitude.

Languages are not commodities.  They differ substantially.  For example:
compare Java to Ruby.

Ruby is certainly in the top three of languages that let you write short
and readable programs.  Java is somewhere at the bottom.

Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.

Java culture says: make it complex, make it long, and there's no such
thing as too little XML.  Java programmers would deny having those as
goals in themselves.  But I think they like those properties.

I used to be a Java programmer.  I used to like that stuff.  Some
perverse part of me still does.  There's something strangely appealing
about a behemoth.  Like the U.S.S. Enterprise.

I wouldn't hire myself as I were back then.

Your preferred language says a lot about your personality.  I don't want
Java personalities on my team.  In case I'm not offending enough
demographics: I don't want C++, C#, or Windows personalities, either.

I can imagine finding myself in a situation where Java, C++, C#, or even
Window would be the best solution.  I wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't
realize that.  But I'd be suspicious if he used that stuff in his free
time.

mikael

P.S.  It seems like there are some undercurrents of simplicity in the
Java culture.  If you're a part of that, you'll know to ignore my
ramblings.  But by god, find yourself a better language.