I think that it’s important to hire people who are comfortable with the whole language that you are using.
I also think that “junior code” could mean the opposite of what the author means. Lots of smart juniors write code that abuses complex language features in noncanonical ways that confuse all of the people. Lots of senior devs stick to a known (and canonical to them) subset of features that proved themselves in battle for them.
> Lots of smart juniors write code that abuses complex language features in noncanonical ways that confuse all of the people.
Do you really see people do this in Haskell? I'm "junioring" my way through a problem set now (advent of code) and that does not describe my solutions at all. It is definitely not pro-level Haskell. I use direct recursion with an accumulator when I know there's gotta be some recursion scheme that fits the bill, very simple types, very few advanced combinators and symbols, etc.
It definitely could be better, but it suffers from a lack of fanciness rather than an excess. I've peeked at some expert solutions posted online and they are neat and super impressive... but by and large they confuse the shit out of me.
I have a hard time picturing being overly ambitious as a common beginner flaw in this space.
Different folks take different paths. In any language, you will find folks who start out by kinda overshooting before they learn to tone it down.
It’s not that all Juniors are this way. Maybe some get it right or maybe they even act too skidding. But I think of it as a Junior trait to sometimes overshoot on complexity.
I also think that “junior code” could mean the opposite of what the author means. Lots of smart juniors write code that abuses complex language features in noncanonical ways that confuse all of the people. Lots of senior devs stick to a known (and canonical to them) subset of features that proved themselves in battle for them.