Some questions for you:
Would you say every programming language is fungible? If so, then why are there so many? How many should there be?
And how long did they have funding for to continue doing this work? Is there some part of "it's expensive to do deep work" that you disagree with?
> Would you say every programming language is fungible? If so, then why are there so many? How many should there be?
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Which languages do you reach for most often (whatever the reason for doing so)?
You're conveniently not addressing the more salient, central point: deep work costs lots of money.
Edit: but no one is solving PDEs using Haskell lol.
Thus languages are neither fungible nor does it seem from the languages you just mentioned (which most would say the same) that there is "zero causal relationship" between a language and solving problems in the domain of interest. In this particular hypothetical, someone would notice a desire to solve deep problems with lots of funding that use numerical computing and could thus look for the languages you mentioned as an initial filter. Such a person would probably not be looking at a javascript role, for instance, given these aims.
Thank you.
Lololol what exactly are the unifying themes of
Fortran, C++, Matlab, Julia, Python
They're all pairwise as different as can be.
Man it's hilarious how delusional some people are to insist on their flawed point despite the loudest clearest contradictions.
Yes and I'm arguing there's exactly zero causal relationship.
> There are many ways to find such places. Filtering by tech stack is one possible way of many to search for signal.
You're just wrong. Deep problems come with scale and also cost money to solve. Small-medium shops have neither no matter the "tech stack".