rule

Not sure either. Best guesses are a combination of elitism, ignorance, preconceptions, groupthink, and insincere memeing.

Java used to lack many features to make the stuff you wanted it to do, so most Java programmers adapted design patterns to solve these problems.

Honestly, older versions of Java are utter garbage DX. The only reason it got so popular was because of aggressive enterprise marketing and it worked. How can a language lack such an essential feature as default parameters?

So, anyway after the great hype Java lost its marketshare, and developers were forced to learn another technologies. And of course, instead of looking for language-native way of solving problems, they just used same design patterns.

And thus MoveAdapterStrategyFactoryFactories were in places where simple lambda function would do the same thing, just not abstracted away three layers above. Obviously used once in the entire codebase.

Imo the only really good thing about Java was JVM, while it was not perfect, it actually delivered what it promised.

Java in a large way has been eclipsed by most other languages, and developers kind of have a way of making fun of old technologies, like a lot of the same jokes are made about PHP which is still very popular but outdated. In reality Java is also still incredibly popular and knowing it is certainly a benefit. It's just a collective joke.

If it's a job that requires high-performance/low-level code (which seems to be the case from the other qualifications), this is probably their way of filtering out people who have primarily worked at a higher level where you don't need to worry about the nitty-gritty details

Object oriented programming encourages a number of anti-patterns

public static void main string args

Shush, grandpa. Go to bed already.

As an embedded systems engineer, this is now my mental image anytime anyone talks about hardware bring up.

And that's how hopes die...

I saw this screenshot ages ago yeah

Initiative?

This is pretty common with outside contractors.

We just come in, say we'll pay them x dollars and they give us code that passes the test. But that code will not at all align with any prior patterns.

I absolutely know I'm guilty of it when I do freelancing. Sorry.

You can always tell when someone's been a career contractor because they never adhere to any of the established patterns/styles in the codebase.

That's not to say that python coding habits are the best either -- certainly they're terrible when translating outside of python (most of the time). And even within python, someone who is used to with only the base modules will write it differently than writing PyQt and still completely different than someone doing numpy code... because the styles of coding of the underlying system change your coding mode. Like, my variables are all CamelCase when doing user interfaces with Qt because it makes sense there, stylistically.

Did you pay by the SLOC?

It was brown M&Ms. Only a psychopath would say no green M&Ms.

I worked under a self-proclamed Python/JavaScript programmer, and part of the job involved doing rather advanced stuff in various other typed languages like c# and c++. It was hell. The code review were hell. For every little tiny weenie little things we had to go through "why coding c++ like it is python" is a very bad idea.

What is crazy about developers who exclusively work with scripting languages is that they have no conception of why general good practices exist, and they often will make up their own rules based on their own quirks. In my previous example, the developer in question was the author of a codebase that was in literal development hell, but he was adamant on not changing his ways. I'd definitely be wary of hiring someone who exclusively worked with scripting language, and sometime it is less work to train someone who is a blank slate rather than try to deprogram years of bad habits.

That guy was shitty at Python, then. Python is all about EAFP instead of LBYL.

I wouldn't call this a "python thing".

I grew up with C and C/++ is still my main language, checking for empty strings is instinctive to me. It's cheap insurance and what does it cost, a couple cycles?

Though you won't find me using bare cstrings these days unless there is a damn good reason for it. So much extra work to handle them. Even in embedded work, String classes have superceded them.

Rust is the Celeste of programming languages.

I know this was't intended for me but thank you so much for this comment!