> Let's face it, people who go to work with Java projects are not exactly cream of the crop
is a bit of a weird take.
If you're saying that most people working in software engineering aren't "exactly cream of the crop" to begin with, then you probably have a point (I'm a java dev as well, by the way), but I don't see how the programming language changes the equation.
* Most software is done in teams.
* If the code is good, it will be in use for a long time.
* Hence if you want to work on software that matters, you will often work with a language that is not your one true love.
Me and my extremely brilliant collegues in my current project write Java, because that's the language the team has chosen. The language, when it's one of the major ones, has no significance.
True in 2004, probably still true to some extent in 2021.
By the same logic, Python would now also be in the 'uncool' group, since everyone and their mother uses it.
> if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers, because they'll attract only those who cared enough to learn it.
During whole my career, I have found that there are always new things to learn. Learning is not limited to picking new language. And if you work in more popular language, no matter which one, there are always new framerworks, libraries, security issues, performance optimizations, approaches, tools to integrate with, algorithms, you name it.
What he is saying there is either that picking new language matters more then the above. I don't find that convincing.
> So a language that makes source code ugly is maddening to an exacting programmer, as clay full of lumps would be to a sculptor.
Is a programmer with aesthetic preference against java really inherently superior? I find that whole section low on arguments and high on colorful emotions appealing metaphors.