Yep, but the other way around. Open source was Microsoft's fiercest enemy, and now it's managed to root deep inside the company, eating it from the inside out, turning Microsoft into something very very different than what it was 15 years ago. We won!
> Ask at the onset whether or not people would pay for the product you intend to develop. This is the Willingness-to-Pay talk,” Ramanujam argues. “Frontloading this question is powerful because customers won’t be in the mindset of negotiating price. Instead, they’ll give you objective feedback that you can use to prioritize what you’re building.
Nah. People aren't objective about their purchasing decisions like that. The only way to find about willingness to pay is through actual experimentation.
Tech leadership is extremely hard. You either get at one extreme the MBA trained to think producing sugared beverages is equivalent to producing software, and at the other the formerly great coder that couldn't metamorphose himself to be able to manage people. Having all the required qualities is extremely rare.
It's still, also by many indexes, one of the safest countries in the world, despite the objectively isolated issues you see in the media... Unless you come from another top OECD, coming back doesn't sound like a great deal.
Considering there's a shortage of labour supply in this industry, if you're good enough, at some point it is you who is screening candidate companies you'd like to work with and not the other around. And just as it's hard for companies to find the right candidates, it's hard for you to really tell how work is gonna be like with any given company. Things like ageism, culture-fit crap, ping-pong tables benefits (instead of better pay) are all great hints that give away places you don't wanna work in. Not just because those things are bad by themselves, but also they reveal a lack of moral principles that's gonna be reflected later on in the job in many other ways.
Very French for them to require a masters degree for employees. Contrast that to the more welcoming working permit in Germany[1]. Also currently the startup scene in Berlin looks pretty interesting!
The separation of concerns inherent to microservices is such a great advantage, that in my opinion it's critical even for small teams. You can bring an extra hand into the team without them having to have to understand other parts of the code to do their job. A monolith with clearly delimited packages will give you this too, but it won't allow you for example to place each service under its own repo which would also provide you with the ability to limit code access. That requires a lot more up-front investment, but it's worth over the long run, unless your project has a very limited life-span, which is rare and sometimes really unknown.
The Blub Paradox argument basically states that you must use the most powerful language because it's the only one that'll let you have a broader perspective to judge all the other programming languages.
Ironically, this kind of perspective is very narrow itself. You gotta consider the ultimate goal of writing software is to generate solutions that successfully solve users' problems. For complex problems that require lots of people working together, usually the effectiveness of that collaboration is the hardest of all problems, well above the technical problems.
Most of all modern programming languages can solve all the problems, in different ways. So the criteria for selecting a language is not power, but how it facilitates existing and new members of a team to make progress.