It seems absurd to recommend a teaching language without any consideration for the technical merits of the language to me. The argument in the article is among the lines of lets use javascript because it has the most shiny things.
Getting everyone to come to a consensus on what should or shouldn't be included would be very difficult. Then there's also the issue of backwards compatibility. At the end of the day they're opt in so you can just simply not use them.
Optimizing individually for every individual has a tendency to de-optimize the community as a whole.
This is one of those things that seriously limits Haskell's growth. It's something for new users to bounce off of, and that contributes to Haskell's reputation as a write-only language.
I've found it quite practical for getting things done, there's a higher learning curve then something like python though. From a career perspective it's hard to recommend anything that isn't one of the top most used programming languages, I'm not sure Haskell or most functional programming languages can do anything about that though.
That's quite an exaggeration, there's already written packages in emacs for lots of programming languages. Just need to add the package to your config.
It has nothing to do with job hoppers deserving more money, it's more that companies don't typically pay those who stick around as well. The job hopper would be more likely to already be making more money, therefore he'd have more leverage going into negotiations. The likelihood that you'd spend ten years specializing in something that is exactly what lots of companies need at the moment is fairly low, especially in an industry where the churn of technologies is high. It's more likely that they'd have ten years experience in a dated technology.
No approach will ever make everyone happy, but some people would be happy with those deals. It's only natural to want to work on interesting problems and be paid well & I don't think there's anything wrong with striving for that. In an ideal world we'd only work on what is the most interesting to us with no concern for money. In the real world there is an unfortunate flaw where we need money in order to survive. Lots of companies have an even worse issue when trying to recruit where the work is boring and the pay is average.
If software engineers are really so easy to replace then why hasn't it happened? They're currently paid more then most professions so clearly businesses would take a cheaper path if available.
It happens all the time, especially outside of anomalies like the Bay Area. Even in the Bay Area it happens frequently enough. Pay is higher in the Bay Area and similar locations because of artificial constraints from the demand-side, not because of a lack of supply. Outside the Bay Area (and similar places) developers aren't paid that much better than any other college educated, skilled worker. I came from outside the Bay Area. This world is...very different from the software world in most other places.
The median pay across the whole US for software engineers is quite a bit higher then the median income for all professions. Or are you referring to a different country?
Doctors have an extra 4 years of very expensive school plus an extra 3-7 years of training. Lawyers have an extra 3 years of very expensive school and only make about 15% more on average than software developers. Accountants make on average about 30% less than software developers.
It is happening in the long term. Software engineers are in the long term often being replaced by other software engineers. The process does not exists in world where people change companies before the companies could realize they need to be changed or where companies lifecycle is short (e.g. startups which die before 2 years and participants move to other positions.)
Software engineers being replaced occurs in a more indirect way. Usually through automation and third party SaaS. Companies replace their own devs with technology and other companies devs rather.
