Do people think the hiring and talent argument holds water?
The more I hear this argument (e.g., from the "Python Paradox"), the less I buy it.
Is the theory that true "hackers" care more about the programming language syntax and semantics than whether it has the right libraries for the subject domain of the startup?
Is the theory that true "hackers" care more about whether the startup uses a new and un-tested programming language than traction, likelihood of success, money, or the actual problems being solved?
Do the best "hackers" come in by searching job sites for niche programming languages, rather than referrals?
Even ignoring the huge disadvantages in library support, tooling, community sizes, and so on, are the hiring and talent advantages believable? Are the sort of people who learn Haskell also the sort of people who would be 99th percentile C++ systems engineers for some reason?
Startups are outliers, most of the metrics you mentioned for startups are at best noise and at worst cargo cult business.
The important thing is that people who are using esoteric languages more likely to try new and off the wall things that could lead to a new type of business. A new italian restaurant is not a startup, a restaurant that serves only dehydrated food might be.
If your startup serves italian food then you should probably go hire a bunch of java programmers the python paradox doesn't apply, and arguably most startups by number are serving italian food. (eg. your latest mobilesociallocal coupon startup). If you're truly doing something new then you're probably best off hiring people used to doing new things where there are no established best practices. (eg. trail blazers) You're most likely to find trail blazers on the trail rather than reading best practices docs.
The python paradox is about people not programming languages. (At least that's what I took from it) Also, there's nothing wrong with a new italian restaurant, on average it's probably going to be more successful than an dehydrated food establishment, but if you're looking to create a new nation-wide fad, you'll probably have more luck with dehydrated food than italian restaurants.
There are all sorts of people those that get their kicks on language selection and semantics, there are those that love to discuss process (agile, scrum, TDD, whatever), others that want to focus solely on delivery. Reality is, the best people are somewhere in the middle.
An engineer worth hiring is one that is bright, curious, and learns quickly. That said, they should also have an interest in some aspect of what you are producing. I, personally, have searched for jobs on the basis of esoteric / niche items, mainly hoping for something different. The most rewarding experiences have been where I've worked with/brought in good people and built cool things. One of those involved Windows Server and WinCE work, and I personally dislike working on Windows. But the overall project was interesting.
Technologies, languages, approach, and product. A good engineer who is interested will likely have deeper interests and help contribute in one of those four areas.
The 99th percentile C++ systems engineer uses C++ in their day job, likes it, and uses Haskell on the weekends for fun. They can also give you a detailed set of things Haskell needs to fix before it becomes more widely used (fast Mutable Maps among them).
> Is the theory that true "hackers" care more about the programming language syntax and semantics than whether it has the right libraries for the subject domain of the startup? Is the theory that true "hackers" care more about whether the startup uses a new and un-tested programming language than traction, likelihood of success, money, or the actual problems being solved?
As a basically useless anecdote... for random mucking around, I use whatever language sounds interesting. This has been Perl, Python, Forth, CL, Clojure, Ruby, and many others by now. (I used to consider myself a hacker, until I realized I wasn't working on any hard problems.)
But for real business, I'd choose something I know I can deliver with, which is pretty much Perl, C, or PHP for me. I've tried to extend this set by playing in Java and C# a few times, but the interest just isn't there. (Edit: I don't seem to have any problem delivering on boring problems in php, though.)
I think the idea is that enthusiastic hackers are more likely to try new and "weird" things than, say, somebody who learned a language in school, got a job at some BigCo that happened to be using that language, and spends their days sticking that language's libraries together with bubblegum and Popsicle sticks.
You'll probably filter out some good candidates, but people who make it through at least stand out from the crowd in some positive way.
I think it's this: the best programmers generally want to learn new languages and approaches. This means that by mid-career, they've been exposed to at least 5 languages and seriously used two or more. They've at least tried functional programming. Rarely is the general-case favorite, for such a person, C++ or Java.
Finding great programmers who know C++ and Java is not very hard. Finding great programmers who prefer those languages is quite difficult.
Many outstanding engineers use C++ (or a particular variant thereof) and like it.
C++ is the only choice to write serious performance critical apps with acceptable abstractions. The STL may be hard to debug, but it's the only way to do certain things.
And now with C++11, we're going to see it starting to give many other languages a run for their money.
I think it's this: the best programmers generally want to learn new languages and approaches.
This is true, however an inherent danger to Haskell/Lisp/ML-filtering is that this group has also a relatively high percentage of people who think every problem is a nail.
So filter for people who know functional languages, but also have plenty of experience with, say, C or C++ projects.
You really believe functional programmers are more willing to treat their language choice as a golden hammer than C++ or Java programmers? You must have installed a different version of reality than I have.
I didn't say filtering on Java was any better. Just that 'filter on Haskell or Lisp' is no golden rule. You will miss out on good candidates. There are great programmers out there who never really touched Scheme or Haskell outside a CS course.
Also, I think that a fairly large subset of C++ programmers who think that C++ is an ugly and complex language. But it's often practical, e.g. because it is used in legacy software, because it's fast (and provides more abstraction than C), or because many good cross-platform UI libraries use C++.
The more I hear this argument (e.g., from the "Python Paradox"), the less I buy it.
Is the theory that true "hackers" care more about the programming language syntax and semantics than whether it has the right libraries for the subject domain of the startup?
Is the theory that true "hackers" care more about whether the startup uses a new and un-tested programming language than traction, likelihood of success, money, or the actual problems being solved?
Do the best "hackers" come in by searching job sites for niche programming languages, rather than referrals?
Even ignoring the huge disadvantages in library support, tooling, community sizes, and so on, are the hiring and talent advantages believable? Are the sort of people who learn Haskell also the sort of people who would be 99th percentile C++ systems engineers for some reason?