Getting to the next interview stage is not 'getting something back' according to his criteria - at that stage he doesn't know if he wants to progress, and doing a test doesn't provide more information. It gives the company information on whether it wants to progress, but not the candidate.
Also, refreshing memory on coding tests is not exactly getting a lot back. You don't need to do an interview to do a coding test, if that's your fetish.
Not that I completely agree with the guy. I don't mind coding tests or assignments, except when I have no idea whether or not I actually want to work at a company when they give me one. So, in that case, unless I'm really bored or feeling especially unemployed, I don't put a lot of effort in. I do understand why companies do them, and the company I work for does.
I read the article - your points are covered by it, maybe that's why people are downvoting instead of discussing.
That quote attributes more credit to programma2003 than wiring (precursor vs. inspired by). Is that an accurate portrayal of the history?
And there's a middle ground between stating inspiration and getting a tattoo. Inspiration implies idea not substance. Since it was a fork, 'based on' may be more appropriate.
Small structural changes can result in large changes in effect and toxicity. Moving to a new series like NBoMe which may share some properties, from halogenated phenylethylamines can mean very different effects.
Likewise sulfur compounds like the 2C-T series may be very different.
The fact that they all start with 2C, indicating a phenylethylamine, is not enough of a discriminator for their action.
The article is very opinionated, with bolded sentences, repeated phrasing, and is mainly imperatives.
The immediate response for me is 'some other fucker is telling me I have to work now?'
Work means different things for different people.
Also, I guess your opinion is actually more nuanced than the article implies, and though I still might not appreciate it, I wouldn't be as annoyed if the article was an honest exploration instead of a rushed polemic.
So, this is the culmination of 8 years of rants and blog posts? This is what he's been trying to say all that time? What a peak he has reached. What an insight.
I'm trying to think of an apt analogy for this post that doesn't involve vomit or defecation, but it's hard. From the introduction proclaiming how readers will be stunned by how clearly and resoundingly true the revelation revealed within will be, to the literary diarrhea it's followed by... it's like a little kid proudly telling his parents he finally used the toilet properly only for them to find he completely missed the bowl. Yeah, I failed.
If the political spectrum is deeply flawed, as he said, then why even try to hack it onto something completely unrelated, made of individual technical points where each programmer may have a different approach?
I don't know, I like a lot of his past posts, but I don't dig this one. I don't think it provides any useful insight whatsoever.
I don't know, what does a guy have to do to get a language accepted these days. Integrate it with one of the most popular platforms, base the syntax on the most popular syntax, make the type system sound and expressive at the same time... and then it's too complicated. Or too hard for the average developer. Really? It seems to me that scala can be seen as an extended version of java. Though it extends pretty far, sure.
I've used scala on and off for 5 years or so. It seems to me to be a very practical and flexible language. There are things that I don't like, but compared to the number of things I don't like about every other language I use, scala does ok.
And I kinda wonder about the too hard for the average developer thing anyway. Didn't the average developer use to program C++? Despite efforts to the contrary, I still program C++, and compared to that, scala's a stroll on a spring day.
So many sentences in bold, yet so little substance. What he seems to be saying is that to be a better interface between development and customers/management/etc requires more than pure programming ability. Yeah, ok. And maybe this is beneficial for business or, if there really is a lack of this talent, for career prospects. But it's not being a better programmer. The pithy title is not very relevant to the content.
As regards the pithy title though, and the earlier part of the article, I disagree. Programmers can and do develop. There is a large difference in ability between people who stick with the craft for a large number of years (and actively develop their abilities), and those who are new to it. When I was younger I would have probably agreed, yeah, programmers are just good or bad (and I'm good). But I wasn't good. I've become better since. And there's still a lot to learn and pursue. It takes time.
Having said that, it's definitely possible not to progress as a developer despite programming every day. It requires some amount of contemplation.
Yeah, I enjoyed it when I first read it (about when it first came out), but I tried to reread it more recently, and found it patronising. I think these pragmatic programmer books are like the pop-psychology of programming books. They're easy to read, written in a light humorous style, but have low density of information and lack deep insight.
This was the best out of their books that I've read, and at the time, like I mentioned, I enjoyed it and got a lot from it. Not now though.
I think a lot of this depends on context. Programming books tend to require a certain amount of concentration, especially if covering topics novel to the reader, and if they have a decent information density. That's ok, I'd rather read something that takes some thought over a few days, than wade through a pile of verbose crap with little true information but finish it in an evening.
However, looking back over some books I've read for ones that I read cover to cover without much of a break, one was programming in scala - I thought it was well written, but it was also an easy read as I was familiar with much of the material, and it was very relevant to what I was doing at the time. There are books that I've really enjoyed where at least some of the content was truly new to me, like "essentials of programming languages", and "concepts, techniques and models of computer programming" - I can't honestly say I read the latter without taking a break every now and again though. But both of these books are very enjoyable and present the material in really nice ways. I wish I'd had these as an undergraduate.
I did read the pragmatic programmer a long time ago, pretty much cover to cover. Trying to reread it now, it (and the other books I've attempted to read of theirs) seem like the pop psychology of programming books. I enjoyed it at the time, and felt it was worthwhile. Probably a better book for programmers starting out. When I attempted to read it again I found it patronising and self indulgent.
Also, refreshing memory on coding tests is not exactly getting a lot back. You don't need to do an interview to do a coding test, if that's your fetish.
Not that I completely agree with the guy. I don't mind coding tests or assignments, except when I have no idea whether or not I actually want to work at a company when they give me one. So, in that case, unless I'm really bored or feeling especially unemployed, I don't put a lot of effort in. I do understand why companies do them, and the company I work for does.