I second your experience with Python. I've been coding in Python for 10+ years. When I get passed down some 'data scientist' code, I often it breaks.
With Rust, it was amazing - it was a pain to get it compiled and get past the restrictions (coming from a Python coder) - the code just ran without a hitch, and it was fast, never even tried to optimize it.
As a Python 'old-timer' , I also am not impressed with all the gratuitous fake typing , and especially Pydantic. Pydantic feels so un-pythonic, they're trying to make it like Go or Rust, but its falling flat, at least for me.
German unification was unthinkable until the soviet union collapsed. Maybe in 25 years, the 2 Koreas will be reunited, making Korea an even bigger power on the global stage.
The author describes a context while he's debugging. I think an analogy would be a chess game, where the player has built/planned your stack of several 'look ahead' moves. And then you get interrupted. That can be indeed be very disruptive for a human brain. A computer can save that 'stack' and resume, not so for a human brain to recover your context. Programming has its unique things. Not to deny the other unique situations (underwater panel, clinician's analysis etc) that have been mentioned in the various threads of this discussion.
That's a pretty disfunctional state of affairs you describe in Health-care. A little bit like what we have in Tech. Where career managers/MBAs/PMPs control execution of projects with various levels of technical complexity - essentially Tech projects where the project succeeds inspite of the powers-that-be.
Looks like you discovered where your motivation knob is, and come to think of it, being dis-satisfied with something is a very common, and rational way to be motivated.
Your interruptions/work-context are way out there in terms of stress/impact etc.
APL and J : Agreed. Haskell is my refuge when Python starts getting verbose. Even if you're interrupted, there's a slim chance with concise languages that you could carry that line in your head even as you are dragged away from your context.
Re. the darker possibility becomes the bias, since the organization (maybe due to its size), with its focus on success, has a low tolerance for an employee who is struggling.
That would be true. However, the word excellence, especially in IT companies is a relative term at best. We have seen others in this forum refer to Amazon's work as fixing broken code that's hardly maintainable. Hardly what one would call 'excellence' particularly given how exalted a position Amazon occupies as a desirable employer.
You could have a bunch of OOPs-fanatics who will hate the functional programmer who does things differently. Toxic culture (lack of self-awareness means that 99% of people don't know they are participating/creating/perpetuating the toxicity) means this functional programmer is demoralizing the team.
That's how objective IT is. Its culture wars of this sort - misplaced fanatic sincerity and close-mindedness, or worse mean-ness. And its demoralizing to the majority. Hence the PIP. Its like a dystopian landscape.
I recently left my employer after about an year and half. I was on the edge of a PIP - so I thought - and constantly felt like an imposter. Making it past the year-mark surprised me.. and it was getting better when I quit. My manager would insist on the bi-weekly 1:1s that I was not on a PIP.
In comparison, I can only imagine what a hell Amazon must be, a soul-destroying place to work for most people who aren't in the top 25% or something like that. As an employer, Amazon sounds like an evil machine.
With Rust, it was amazing - it was a pain to get it compiled and get past the restrictions (coming from a Python coder) - the code just ran without a hitch, and it was fast, never even tried to optimize it.
As a Python 'old-timer' , I also am not impressed with all the gratuitous fake typing , and especially Pydantic. Pydantic feels so un-pythonic, they're trying to make it like Go or Rust, but its falling flat, at least for me.