Mojo’s starting point is absurdly complex. Seems very obviously doomed to me.
Julia is a very clever design, but it still never felt that pleasant to use. I think it was held back by using llvm as a JIT, and by the single-minded focus on data science. Programming languages need to be more opportunistic than that to succeed, imo.
Out of the ones you listed I’d suggest Julia or Clojure. They are simple and have interactive modes you can use to experiment easily.
Experienced programmers often undersell the value of interactive prompts because they don’t need them as much. They already have a detailed mental model of how most languages behave.
Another thing: although Julia and Clojure are simple, they are also quite obscure and have very experimental designs. Python might be a better choice. From a beginner’s perspective it’s very similar to Julia, but it’s vastly more popular and lots of people learn it as their first language.
Based on the languages you found, I’m guessing you were looking for something simple and elegant. I think Python fits this description too.
How did they ask all these random people and not bother to ask a single software engineer?
“Hi is this excuse real, or is it just a sign of an inappropriate relationship between the local council and a dodgy software company that pays more dividends than developers? Oh it’s the latter? Okay, thanks.”
You can argue about productivity and “progress” all you like, but none of that will raise you back into my good opinion.
Why would you quote this and then immediately argue about productivity and progress?
They are not stupid at all. Their interests are in conflict with the interests of tech workers and they are winning effortlessly, over and over again.
The big tech companies are all owned by the same people. If these layoffs cause google to lose market share to another company, it’s fine because they own that company too.
What matters is coordinating regular layoffs across the whole industry to reduce labour costs. It’s the same principle as a strike: if the whole industry does layoffs, workers gradually have to accept lower salaries. In other words, the employers are unionised and the employees are not.
This process will probably continue for the next 20 years, until tech workers have low salaries and no job security. It has happened to countless industries before, and I doubt we are special.
I’m sure the next big industries will be technology-focused, but that’s not the same as “tech”. They won’t involve people being paid $200k to write websites in ruby.
“As we’ve said, we’re responsibly investing in our company’s biggest priorities and the significant opportunities ahead,” said Google spokesperson Alex García-Kummert. “To best position us for these opportunities, throughout the second half of 2023 and into 2024, a number of our teams made changes to become more efficient and work better, remove layers, and align their resources to their biggest product priorities. Through this, we’re simplifying our structures to give employees more opportunity to work on our most innovative and important advances and our biggest company priorities, while reducing bureaucracy and layers”
There was this incredible management consultant in france in the 18th century. Name eludes me, but if he was still around Google could hire him and start finding some far more convincing efficiencies.
The guy was especially good at aligning resources to remove layers
They are both doomed because neither is transformative enough to justify adoption. They are going to need to solve much harder problems to do that.
Take Rust as an example. It solved a problem that most people weren’t even paying attention to, because the accepted wisdom said it was impossible.