I'm not saying "don't learn Haskell/Scala" or "never work at a company that uses Haskell/Scala". I'm saying that early on, you want to have widely-used technology on your resume, and then you can start to find a niche.
If your first and only job is at a Haskell shop, it's going to be much harder to get a job at a place that uses something more mainstream.
Does that make sense? This reflects popularity only, not the quality of the technology.
Setting the scope of the work is what is keeping management controlled.
E.g. "In Version 1.0, it will talk to these 3 services only..."
But that is different from 'requirements' which I take it as 'things that are required' and have a non-negotiable connotation about them.
E.g. "It must work with all of our services"
Since it is not know which requirements are actually required and which are BS, it may be better to call requirements 'requested functionality' and what is planned to be delivered 'project scope' and drop the requirements word altogether.
Not his opinion but one could cite the report itself:
Diversity matters. Research shows that teams with more women members have higher collective
intelligence and achieve better business outcomes. Our survey shows that few teams are truly diverse
with regard to gender. We recommend that teams wanting to achieve high performance do their best
to recruit and retain more women, and improve diversity in other areas, too.
which claims having more women on the board has achieved better business outcomes.
Which is fine until you start digging and find out that they passed legislation in Europe forcing companies to be more diverse. That companies in Europe had the number of women on boards double in less than two years http://imgur.com/a/4sE2y despite a recession and stagnating economy.
Then they justify the economic "recovery" since the 2008 crash to that decision.
And now hiring more women is associated to economic growth.
You should hire and compensate people based on the value they generate. Instead companies are becoming political parties trying to reach diversity quotas to satisfy the local demographics and government policy du jour.
This has been going on for decades but there is nothing like government intervention to accelerate a disaster.
Read down. They cite several studies. To be honest, I was little weirded out by the implication that diversity and equitable gender distribution are synonymous. In fact there is only one-half sentence mentioning non-gender diversity - "and improve diversity in other areas, too."
It is possible. I actually love going to work. Just wanted to provide a counterpoint here.
I didn't always feel like this. I used to work for a depressing place. But since I started working for my current company, the culture, the people, have made it worthwhile.
