I think articles like these beg the question. It introduces a claim (&quot;many&#x2F;most people think some languages are too weird&quot;) and tries to refute it without first showing that the claim is true.<p>Sure, I see lots of evidence of junior developers living in a happy bubble where they apply language X to everything, when they could expand their horizons a bit by looking into Y and Z.<p>But this also ignores important factors such as:<p>* Convenience — if you&#x27;ve highly proficient in X, there&#x27;s a low barrier to entry for anything you want to accomplish.<p>* Private ecosystem — if all your code is in X, you have potentially tons of reusable modules as part of your own stack.<p>* Public ecosystem — lots of libraries and community support.<p>* Mature documentation<p>* Stability<p>* Ease of hiring<p>and so on.<p>Also, not least: The journey of every developer is to broaden one&#x27;s horizons gradually. As a junior you&#x27;ll likely slog through a few fad languages until you reach a point where every technology out there, no matter how advanced, will suddenly become approachable.<p>The Blub idea also ignores the fact people can accomplish great things with poor tools. Choosing a minimal tool does not necessarily say anything about you as a developer. Sticking to one tool for many years probably says a lot about your ability to develop your skills, of course.<p>In short, I think Blub is a red herring, and I think it&#x27;s a condescending one, a product of survivorship bias — you&#x27;re not superior because you succeeded using a certain set of tools. You&#x27;re probably successful for other reasons (which may correlate with your ability to choose the right tools, or not).<p>Graham&#x27;s observation that &quot;[languages] dictate the way [developers] think about programs&quot; is the more important lesson to draw from his essay, though it&#x27;s not exactly a new idea.