Hacker News Reader

Comment by gerbilly | Hacker News Reader

>You don't know what the technology behind a website is? Then it's a minus, as you've missed out on ten years of technological advancements in your field.

Huh, we hired a guy who worked on the JVM and the Java compiler.

Not much web experience.

Would he have been technical enough for you?

You don't like COBOL it seems, but you do realize that web development and it's byzantine combination of random languages, document standards and frameworks is maybe even worse than COBOL was?

We have nothing to be proud of as web developers, if you ask me. At least some programmers in the 60s and 70s were discovering brand new algorithms that we still use today, not just marshalling data in JSON (JSON is a crappy XML replacement) between layers of code and the NOSQL database (NOSQL is a worse SQL) and re-inventing their web framework every 3 months.

View on HN

I've never met a candidate who worked on the internals of the JVM or Java compiler, so I can't say we would hire him. I have met more candidates who know what technology is used as the backend of a website, than who know the internals of the JVM. Also, is he still aware of the current intrinsics of the JVM and Java compiler, or was that 10 years ago?

My post was very blunt, like I said. I read through every resume I get, and I would be interested in somebody who has JVM/Java compiler knowledge.

As for COBOL: I don't need a COBOL programmer, we have no COBOL and won't write COBOL. We do have a website, which requires development though. If you had to pick one, which would you hire: A COBOL developer with no Web development skills, or a Web developer with no COBOL skills.

I have a view on web development as well, but that's a long post as well. I prefer JSON over XML, I've worked with both, and I struggled with tooling for XML, validation, parsing and the whole 'who creates the WSDL' discussion. I miss some good JSON validation though (and JSON comments). YAML I like less, because using indentation as for logic is asking for problems.

We don't use NOSQL. Our data is very relational.

Most shops require expertise in the specific tools, frameworks, and domains they're using -- and can afford to be picky. Given the choice they will always pick the person who can "hit the ground running" over the one who "needs to be brought up to soeed". And they usually have thst choice.

Many people hate XML more than JSON, and I would agree with them. I hate both, and prefer yaml.

Have you really read the YAML spec? It's a rather complex grammar. I get that YAML is visually cleaner than JSON; however, unless we're constrained to very trivial use cases there's probably too much to think about. JSON's strong lack of TMTOWTDI is an asset here.

As for XML: namespaces, DTDs, entities, XSD, XSL, XPath, and on and on, have resulted in some absolutely horrendous architecture astronautism. XML itself is (mostly) perfectly fine but there are too many unqualified people in the industry wielding XML, poorly, and creating massive headaches. XML also presents some interesting security challenges.

json and xml are visually balanced. All beginnings have an end. I have trouble with yaml because it lacks that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com