It's up for debate how productive Japan's companies really are.
Studies show it is one of the least productive/efficient among developed economies, with all the unnecessary meetings, lack of quick decision-making, and outdated processes.
Cryptography is the basis of Web 3.0, so in a formal sense there is none.
But I think that you rather want an example that is a little farther away from finance markets. Consider, for example, the (in my observation mostly dead) Namecoin:
There are 3 major footguns with automatic semicolon insertion iirc (one involves having the return statement on its own line. As long as you know them all it's fine I guess, but not my taste.
We didn't get as much money as we estimated to have. We blame that one person on losing £963k that we never had, but we imaged being entitled to having it and it felt nice to our shareholders.
It's crazy that gang members who stab people by tesco for £20 will get less than 1 year in prison.
l might be wrong,but it almost sounds like you're saying there's no room for middle aged people to switch to coding later in life. There can be many reasons people switch, not necessarily related to a crisis or monetary incentives. We need more coders, so why not let people learn.
I'm wondering who is the "we" in the "we need more coders" part of your comment referring to. I can think of a few examples where some people might want more coders, but other might not:
1) Right now coders are in high demand. This means that they cost a lot. Recruiters might want more coders to be able to recruit people easier, companies might want more coders to reduce their price, and have more people working. On the other hand, coders themselves might not want more coders because it may reduce their earnings, and make it harder for them to get jobs.
2) Some people think that more software is good, and therefore we need more people producing it. On the other hand, some people think that "we should be more like engineers" and should gatekeep more, to increase the quality of the software. I'm not supporting either of those idea, just citing examples that I've seen, especially here on HN
3) A country might want more coders in general to increase its economy, especially if it's one where other countries can outsource work to. But on the other hand, it might also not want other countries that have a lower cost of living/salaries to have more coders, so they can keep work for themselves.
All of that to say that I'm not sure the sentiment of "we need more coders" is agreed upon by everyone, which is why I'm asking who you were referring to.
I agree 'we' is relative, on reflection. I meant in general terms only i.e., the need for more developers will increase as employers start to build more software, which is where I posit things are heading. I could be wrong of course.
I slightly regret adding that to my post now, as my main concern was with the over generalisation of the reasons why older people might switch to coding/development. Ironically, I managed to do that myself by assuming the 'we' was agreed as was the need for more developers!
Eventually there will be so much software that writing code will need to be automated by machines. GPT-2 is open source and it's able to write computer programs, although not very well. GPT-3 does it better and they give it away for free. So imagine how much more advanced the stuff you have to pay money for is, or the trade secret models. You'd think programmers would move on to a higher-level of abstraction where programmers program the computer programs that do programming. That's probably not going to be the case. For example, take a look at the GPT-2 source code https://github.com/openai/gpt-2/blob/master/src/model.py It's only a few hundred lines of code.
Women and men used to do computing and mathematics together until man created things like compilers that automated a lot of the tasks women were doing. The man in tech then woke up one day and wondered where all the women went. Now man has done the same thing to himself.
In my experience Tabnine isn’t even near to Copilot. Tabnine is glorified autocomplete, where as copilot somehow takes the entire file into context including comments and I could many times just hit tab several times to almost build what I need. I had very good results in Java, Scala and python.
The part which was more problematic for me was the correlation between having a comp-sci degree and working backend, it felt like a subtle form of gate keeping i.e. you could interpret this as: haven't got a degree? you will be working frontend/ui.
What if the project became popular, scaled up and the original developer needed help with it? As Haskell is a niche language, wouldn't it be harder to find Haskell developers to come on board?
I don't know about Haskell specifically, but the question isn't "how many developers are able and willing to work with $language?" but "how many developers are able and willing to work with $language relative to the number of companies hiring for it?".
For example, Elm is still a tiny, niche language, but from what I hear it's relatively easy to hire for Elm because there are many more people who want to work with it than there are companies that are hiring for it.
Yes, it is harder to find developers for niche languages and technologies. On the other hand you have a pool of enthusiasts looking for the opportunity to use something more niche, like Haskell.
This argument + response keep coming up. If a niche language could never pick up steam we'd still be stuck with assembly. All languages started off as niche.
It's more interesting what constitutes niche, AND as the parent notes what constitutes a "language to have enthousiasm for".
VB, JScript, ActionScript, ColdFusion and BASIC are all niche (nowadays), but without enthusiasm its not interesting.
Besides the niche-enthusiasm, there is also something for "usefulness". Haskell+ecosystem (and others in the FP camp) bring a nice set of features to the table not often found in other languages.
definitely not. Java was presented at SunWorld. When C# came out there were ads in computer programming zines. Swift came out on a wide concert stage with most of the Apple community having their eyes riveted on the video stream: https://youtu.be/MO7Ta0DvEWA?t=45
All that ensures that the "critical mass" adoption to get the language out of niche status would be a non-issue
> This argument + response keep coming up. If a niche language could never pick up steam we'd still be stuck with assembly. All languages started off as niche.
No they didn't all start off as a niche. They started off with a small user base of early adopters. Haskell is a niche because it's been around long enough to pick up users. There is a difference between a new language with a small number of early adopters and a niche language that has been around for decades.
Our startup runs on Haskell. I was worried about this initially but in practice finding great Haskell developers has been no more or less difficult than finding great developers in general.
Yeah, finding a decent Javascript or C++ developer is actually very difficult - everyone thinks they know C++ and Javascript when in fact only a small minority actually do.
I guess if the business idea really took off, then it doesn't really matter what language is this part of logic written in -- you can already wrap it in as a service with Web API -- or simply rewrote it in another more popular language.
There are probably more people who use Haskell or want to use Haskell as their main language than there are job openings to work on a Haskell code base.
If you're willing to work with a remote team your inbox will probably never sit empty.
