>You're not going to consistently get outstanding results if you do the same thing as everyone else.

I think the tools matter a lot less than the people using them, and that programmers who perform above replacement level are rarer than is often discussed. I would take a great programmer writing the app in Java to a bad programmer writing the app in Clojure every day of the week.

> a lot of organizations want to beat the averages

Bold assertion! I think a lot of orgs would love to be as good as average, joking aside.

> You're not going to consistently get outstanding results if you do the same thing as everyone else.

I believe that they understand the premises the same way you do. So they can have 100 average developers or 10 great developers that are three times as effective. If your problem is one that no more than 10 people can work on, you'll take the 10 super experts. If it's not, you'll lose if you choose them because they'll be much slower.

> I imagine the developer pool is much smaller but the candidates are higher quality

People always say this about their favorite niche language and it always feels a little too self serving with little evidence to back it up. Learning languages is relatively simple and enjoyable, especially when the overwhelming majority of those people never end up working on difficult problems in said language. I think it often gives a false sense of superiority as well.

I can see what your getting at but I think this applies beyond programming languages. If you're interviewing someone who is into a niche programming language it can be a sign they are more interested in programming than say, someone who only knows Java etc. Obviously this won't always be the case and can lead to a weird sort of credentialing where people pretend to be into obscure languages.

It would be like if you were interviewing a chef who was saying "yeah yeah pan frying is fine but let me tell you about sous vide."

Then you go on to interview another guy who is into working the grill at chain restaurants.

Is the Sous Vide guy better? Certainly not always. But it can be an indicator this guy is a real nerd about cooking in a way that results in a better meal at the end.

Sure, it's definitely something worth taking into consideration, I just wouldn't value it too highly and in many cases I think there are much better indicators of ability.

>Learning languages is relatively simple and enjoyable, especially when the overwhelming majority of those people never end up working on difficult problems in said language.

Learning languages is not simple and enjoyable for everyone, especially not when they're languages with a radically different paradigm. I will definitely look twice at a JavaScript programmer who says they're also interested in ATS and Forth, for example. It should be fairly straightforward to suss out a rough level of understanding, and beyond whether or not learning languages is easy, it's a fairly strong signal of intrinsic interest, which a lot of employers want from their employees.