Future(s) for D.

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d]

Chris wrote:
"This already started in the 1990ies and got worse and worse, 
this business of looking for the "perfect" candidate. A lot of 
skills can be acquired in the first weeks (or months, depending). 
It's better to train someone who's intelligent and innovative 
than someone who's worked with all IDEs and build systems, but is 
fairly un-innovative (problem => for loop)."

I agree with you, although I don't know how many others would.  
And not all people are equally gifted in picking things up - it's 
ability, but also character since when many people get to a 
certain level of accomplishment they get addicted to the feeling 
of comfort and would rather die than truly push themselves when 
they don't know how it will turn out.

On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 18:15:47 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> For many programmers, programming is just a job, not more. 
>> They don't program in their spare time and are not really 
>> interested in programming languages as you are.
>
> that people called "code monkeys", not "programmers". it's 
> simply impossible to be a programmer without a passion to learn 
> things. not 'cause "well, if i learn XYZ i will be promoted to 
> better job and will get more money", but 'cause "hey, that's 
> *interesting*! i may never use that in my job (this is usually 
> wrong), but it's so interesting that i can't pass it by!"
>
> code monkeys are good when there is a need in writing 
> boilerplate code, but they are bad for solving problems. not 
> necessarily 'cause they're dumb, they simply not interested in 
> problem solving.

Yes - the intriguing thing is that this trend has gone so far 
that good people and mediocre people are the same price if they 
look similar on paper (from what I have seen).  In fact you may 
be able to hire someone good for less than someone mediocre since 
they are less tolerant of a bad working environment and want to 
work on something that inspires them (whereas the average person 
lacks imagination to see what might come out of the 
ordinary-looking seeds of today) .  As an entrepreneur, this is 
one of the biggest arbitrages for many years, I think - provided 
you are able to tell good from mediocre (or to put it charitably, 
top notch from merely solid).

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-D-E-Shaw-pay-young-Harvard-and-MIT-graduates-over-200-000-per-year-right-out-of-college/answer/Laeeth-Isharc

This isn't technology specific, but it fits with what I have 
heard from talking to people who are in that very specific field. 
  I think that's what the Quora guys mean when they talk of 10x 
programmers, but it's not at all the description or way of 
thinking I would apply, since obviously it puts the emphasis on 
measuring what is not so easy to measure.

At my (now defunct - a different story) previous startup fund, we 
had 1200 applications for 2 junior jobs - that's a lot, even 
limiting it to the serious candidates.  And they all look great 
on paper, and one couldn't possibly even call them all.  (For 
this role, I was more concerned about missing someone amazing 
than making the wrong hire - not the normal corporate priorities).

So I wrote an Oxbridge style applied economics open-ended 
question.  Most of the perfect candidates on paper just 
regurgitated what they read in the FT; a few didn't and actually 
thought about it.  And the girl that got the job spent 45 hours 
writing her paper, which was more useful than the stuff you would 
get from a 40 year old seasoned guy.  No way would we have found 
her had we had an HR department (or rather had we let HR 'help' 
us).

For technology, it's different, but I think the same way of 
thinking may prove useful.  And if/when I need a tech guy to help 
me, it's a nobrainer to ask here because of the quality of the 
people.  Although that is not why I am here.