I don’t agree. My perception is that the author doesn’t think “atmosphere” discussions about programming languages are of less value, it’s just an example to segue into the classification of “soil, surface, and atmosphere” as types of programming language considerations, and off of that the observation that the past decade has shifted significantly to “atmosphere” as the most important aspect for safe, boring software engineering (which is the actual primary topic of the article)

None of that is to imply the friend is wrong or inferior in some way

Yeah agreed. I’ve talked with Pablo before about languages, he just really enjoys discussing them and wants to be on the same page of what you’re discussing.

I am however now worried if I said anything about Go lol

You don't know what the other person really wanted or thought - and neither did the author, apparently. The breakdown in communication here is that you, and the author, had certain expectations, assumptions, and unknown information, and you both made conclusions based on all that variable, unknowable, uncommunicated stuff.

Rather than assume what's going on in the other person's head, ask them. Assume good faith until evidence to the contrary. It allows less judgement and negativity, which leads to more fruitful conversation.

My issue isn't what he said, it's how he said it. He could have been more respectful about the other person's opinion about go, but "I suspect he didn't know or think much about [feautures of go]" suggests a very prevalent judgmental attitude towards CS I feel brings the culture of the industry down.

> He instead emphatically talked about how much he loved that "the Go developers knew that all you need is a for loop. Someone brought Scala into my company and I hate the mental shift."

All you need is a for loop? Interesting! Why did they say that? What design decisions informs this approach?

If someone with neither experience in scala or go were to choose one language for this project, why would they use Go or Scala?

If the guy truly has no idea what he's talking about, then it should be evident just by him speaking and you asking questions. If he does, then at best you learn something new or at worse hear a different perspective. Be an active listener and engage with what the other person is saying. You can be critical without being judgmental. It's sort of impossible to have bad faith in this way, because you're taking what the other person is saying seriously instead of writing them off.

>All you need is a for loop? Interesting! Why did they say that? What design decisions informs this approach?

For starters, Go not having a while loop.

The description of this interaction in the article makes me sad for the author - they criticise and belittle another. Imagine instead what they could have learnt if they opened themselves up to another persons perspective.

It’s notable how little this article actually discusses the delivery of any form of value. The tech is not the end in itself, it’s a means to an end - and we live in an age with so many well matured and valid options that for many of the problems we seek to solve what tech we use isn’t necessarily a critical decision.

The author answers their own question - where have the hackers gone? We are getting on with it and building stuff. This kind of language flame war stuff just isn’t as important as it once (debatably) was. It’s a dying trope.

Thinking on the initial mistake our author made - framing the conversation rigidly through their own frame of reference - I’ve personally found Matthew Syed’s work on cognitive diversity helpful in understanding and addressing this. [1]

[1] https://graphic-designer-richmond.co.uk/2021/01/business-boo...

This was my first reaction, but the author won me over to his point as he went along.

I find the soil, surface, atmosphere analogy useful.

Also, I am one of those many many Python programmers who don’t know much about Python. Fascinating how you can be quite productive in tech, even so. Perhaps that’s the glory of Python. But for the record, nobody cares about the specifics of import, or anything else, unless it is likely to influence a problem or solution that we are grappling with.

I’m curious about Python… but I also have a job to do and a deadline.

I agree, the recount of that interaction had major "Oh you love X? Name every Y.[1]" Vibes

1. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oh-you-love-x-name-every-y

This very much read like the comic book guy of programmers to me.

lol you nailed it