Clearly Rust is a conspiracy.

Anyone in software development who was not born yesterday is already well aware of the whole FOMO cycle:

1. hey there's a shiny new tool,
2. it's so fantastic only morons don't use it,
3. oh god what a huge mistake I did,
4. hey, there's a shiny new tool,

Note that this is failure to deliver on time, not failure to deliver full stop.

It's also important to note that the Hallmark of non-Agile teams is de-scoping and under-delivering. It's easy to deliver something on time if you switch your delivery goals and remove/half-bake features to technically meet requirements while not meeting requirements.

I understand. I have to admit I felt a little dirty after pasting that text.

why not ~~just buy a proper charger~~ waste $50 ?

If a library or framework requires boilerplate code it’s a bad library or a bad framework.

I think this take is uneducated and can only come from a place of inexperience. There's plenty of usecases that naturally lead to boilerplate code, such as initialization/termination, setting up/tearing down, configuration, etc. This is not a code smell, it's just the natural reflection of having to integrate third-party code into your projects.

I was thinking of cross posting this to a Fortran community, but it looks like we don’t yet have one.

I'm sure everyone is still in comp.lang.fortran telling all kids to get off their lawns.

As a counter balance to that though, interviewers need to understand what they are hiring for and tailor the questions asked to those requirements.

This does not happen. At all.

Back in reality we have recruiters who can't even spell the name of the teck stacks they are hiring for as a precondition, and asking for impossible qualifications such as years of experience in tech stacks that were released only a few months ago.

From my personal experience, cultural fit and prior experience are far more critical hiring factors, and experience in tech stacks are only relevant in terms of dictating how fast someone can onboard onto a project.

Furthermore, engineering is all about solving problems that you never met before. Experience is important, but you don't assess that with leetcode or trivia questions.

to add to this, id like standardization of qualification and competencies - kind of like a license so I don’t have to “demonstrate” myself during interviews.

I strongly disagree. There is already a standardization of qualification of competences in the form of cloud vendor certifications. They are all utter bullshit and a huge moneygrab which do nothing to attest someone's experience or competence.

Certifications also validate optimizing for the wrong metric, like validating a "papers, please" attitude towards recruitment instead of actually demonstrate competence, skill, and experience.

Also, certifications validate the parasitic role of a IT recruiter, the likes of which is responsible for barring candidates for not having decades of experience in tech stacks they can't even spell and released just a few months ago. Relying on certifications empower parasitic recruiters to go from clueless filterers to outright gatekeepers, and in the process validate business models of circumventing their own certification requirements.

We already went down this road. It's a disaster. The only need this approach meets is ladder-pulling by incompetent people who paid for irrelevant certifications and have a legal mechanism to prevent extremely incompetent people from practicing, and the latter serves absolutely no purpose on software development.

Should be titled, “demotivating a programmer with a specific personality type.”

The author talks about developers who are underpaid, aren't recognized by their work, and aren't even supported adequately with decent gear. This doesn't read like a list of developer traits. This reads like glorifying exploitation and terrible work conditions.

What major Java supporting ide doesn’t support Lombok?

Why would everyone have to onboard a code generator just to be able to use data transfer objects without having to write tons of boilerplate?

Also, Java records allow the runtime to optimize how these instances are handled.

each system has it’s own dialect and quirks

That does not mean that SQL, as specified by one of it's standard versions, is not portable. It just means that some implementations fail to comply with the standard and/or provide their own extensions.

If an implementation fails to comply with the standard, that's a failure on the side of the implementation, not a failure of SQL.

Why are you applying to that soulless shitshack??

If you automatically rule out companies that either do their own coding assessments or offload them to third parties, you'd rule out most of the potential job market.