Timeline for Are there drawbacks to taking a job where I will be using a unique programming language?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2012 at 15:24 | comment | added | SK-logic | It is annoying that such a bigoted anti-DSL rant have so many upvotes. | |
| Jul 7, 2011 at 14:58 | comment | added | Wayne Molina | This x1000. This is almost always a huge red flag unless the "unique" language is something that's only used in a particular industry (but not MUMPS. Avoid that cesspit like the plague!). If it's only used at "Acme Corporation" then run far away and never look back. Arguably even if it was Wasabi (although Wasabi is supposedly like true OOP VBScript so isn't a complete lost cause), this is a terrible thing for anyone with longterm career goals. | |
| Jul 7, 2011 at 9:09 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Dorus | ||
| Jul 7, 2011 at 1:17 | comment | added | unpythonic | The company I know of was a one-of-a-kind oddity. I've never seen another like it. That said, I think a reliance on a single proprietary language speaks to the nature of (mis)management at the company. So either it's a real trap (unlikely) or it's effectively a trap -- either way, steer clear if you can. | |
| Jul 7, 2011 at 0:40 | comment | added | AlexMA | I agree Tyler... though the idea that it could be a trap (even if unintentionally set long ago) is disturbing to say the least. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 23:27 | comment | added | tylerl | I like the idea of looking in to the company's motivations, but IMHO, inventing your own language for the sole purpose of trapping your employees is not an idea that would have gotten off the ground. Instead, almost certainly, someone invented a language to solve a specific problem, and now it's used primarily for legacy reasons. Not an ideal environment, but at least benign. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 22:57 | comment | added | Neil G | @Mark Mann: Good point. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 21:42 | comment | added | unpythonic | @Neil - Plenty of great reasons, and folks usually call them little languages, DSLs (domain specific languages), or (in the case of Google) "the next big thing." I certainly have nothing against proprietary languages. The OP said that this is the only language in use. Google doesn't have anything against standard languages. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 21:27 | comment | added | Neil G | What if he's talking about Google, and the language is sawzall (labs.google.com/papers/sawzall.html), or Go (before it was public)? Aren't there other good reasons to invent a new language? | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 21:08 | comment | added | Jarrod Nettles | @mark-mann - Agreed. Although I said in my post that this isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, I would approach it cautiously and make sure that this is a legit company with successful employees. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for having a proprietary language (most of are forks of existing languages, honestly). | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 21:06 | comment | added | user29981 | +100 Just think about it...the next position you look for that has a mainstream language, you'll have zero years of professional/applicable experience with. You'll be starting all over as a Junior developer again. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 17:51 | comment | added | Ethel Evans | The potential lack of support and documentation (I've never known in-house tools to be as well-documented as standard tools) is a large concern, IMO. And the reasons for doing things this way need to be well understood. | |
| Jul 6, 2011 at 17:48 | history | answered | unpythonic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |