The choice of language being a signal is interesting. That goes against my intuition.
Can you elaborate?
Can you elaborate?
> It's a lot of work to learn a new programming language. And people don't learn Python because it will get them a job; they learn it because they genuinely like to program and aren't satisfied with the languages they already know.
> Which makes them exactly the kind of programmers companies should want to hire. Hence what, for lack of a better name, I'll call the Python paradox: 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. And for programmers the paradox is even more pronounced: the language to learn, if you want to get a good job, is a language that people don't learn merely to get a job.
I wonder correlations eckesicle found, and what languages would fit that profile today.
I would've put Clojure on the list around 2010.
Elixir feels like a right answer today. Maybe Zig, too?
All anecdotal evidence I've seen points to the language mattering a great deal since only those people who are enthusiastic about niche languages, tend to put more time in learning/practicing programming and all other things being equal, spending more time on a skill correlates to being better at said skill.
The bottom languages were: Java C++ Php
They also made up the bulk of interviews. I suspect that Java and c++ together accounted for about 75% of all interviews.
Languages like ruby, python and golang increased your chances of passing the interview as well as getting good peer feedback one year on.
More niche languages (rust, erlang etc) didn’t have enough data points to be analysed separately, but if you grouped them they were the choice of the strongest candidates.