Compared with the other examples you gave, I think one of the differences with micro- and nanoplastic and their growing bioaccumulation, is that if/when we discover that some level of concentration of it causes noticeable issues, it will be very hard to reverse, and it will be globally abundant (i.e. throughout the entire food chain). We'll be stuck with the problem for a very very long time.
It's not like we'll be able to just outlaw it and be done with the issue after a few years. So for this specific polluant, it feels right that we should be cautious and look for solutions as quickly as we can.
I found it hit a strange position between trying to be friendly and trying to be powerful. Things felt very inconsistent. After learning a few patterns in the language, other things I would expect to follow the same patterns went off in their own direction. I wish I could conjure up more specific examples but that's about all I remember from it.
It felt like a language that was built for the singular purpose of supporting Flutter (which I actually did enjoy learning) instead of something that needed to exist in its own right. I wish they'd just picked something already baked.
Well, it was created before Flutter, so it wasn't built for that purpose. They did however steer Dart's direction in a way that would be more suitable for Flutter than as a JS replacement which is what it was created for. I don't think it's fair to criticize Dart in the way you have without giving any examples. I haven't found it to be trying to be powerful at all. For example it uses async-await, defaults to dynamic arrays and doesn't focus on classes as much as eg. Java. So I find it to be simple on all accounts. And the developers have specifically stated that their intention with the language is to be as intuitive as possible with the smallest amount of surprises. And I've found that to be the case. I almost never need to actually look at the documentation. Meanwhile I always find myself in MDN looking at some strange JS API (`Date`, for example) despite using it for much longer. And don't even get me started on Java.
At our company, out of the 8 engineers I hired, only 2 had specific experience with our backend (Elixir) or frontend (Flutter) stack. I hired for apparence of talent, experience in some other equivalent stack and the right attitude towards learning.
All of them got productive rather quickly and had PRs shipping to prod in the same week, if not within a couple days.
I’m not saying it _will_ go as smoothly for anyone else, but if you have the right environment and pick the right people, as an employer you’re better off being flexible with experience.
Looks awesome! Quick note about the landing page: the GIF captures in the "How it works" section are a bit vertically stretched, weirdly pixellated and really too quick to understand what's going on.
Disclaimer: I have a company and I've started a few in the past.
My take is that the loyalty a company has towards a given employee cannot be the same, simply because it lacks the emotional basis that usually makes that loyalty as strong and/or as irrational. It's completely a matter of company culture which, in most cases, isn't very empathic to employees.
I don't think lack of loyalty is a rule though. I think that if the company culture is set up properly, it can totally have some form of valuable, albeit different, loyalty towards its employees.
Thing is though from the other side even if you have good intentions, you still have more then one people to think about. So your loyalties are split. For an employee, it's only one entity to be loyal to.
Most employees have split loyalties as well: Family members, personal projects, etc., which to varying degrees affect their loyalty to the company. It's how it should be. Neither side is free from conflicting loyalties. Nonetheless even within those constraints, both side can show loyalty if they treat each other with consideration and respect.
