In the ever changing landscape of software programming, it is not surprising that developers and employees have a different set of preferences for desired skills.  However the number one language that developers want to learn according to a survey of developers by technical recruiter, Hacker Rank is Python. This is not a surprise considering that Python has been in demand for several years and programmers tend to really enjoy this language for clear syntax, good OOP support and great shortcuts. Python, named “the language of the year” in 2007 and 2010 in the TIOBE Index and has climbed to #4 status in May of 2018.

According to the study, employers want developers who:

-  Have problem-solving skills, such as the ability to break down large, complex problems.
- Are proficient in their programming language and debugging.
- Can design systems.
- Can optimize performance.
- Have experience in reviewing and testing code.
- Are proficient in database design

Surprisingly, formal education is not the deciding factor when it comes to what companies care about the most. People with computer degrees or certifications on a resume are not necessarily a first choice for hiring managers. Others that have years of experience even if those individuals are partially self-taught in the field stand to be taken seriously in the field.   For those individuals with a passion to learn and master a skill, there are ample opportunities with smaller to mid-sized companies.

Some interesting FAQ’s from the study:

    On average, developers know 4 languages, and they aspire to learn 4 more.
    Younger developers between 18 and 24 plan to learn 6 languages.
    Folks older than 35 only plan to learn and additional 3 languages.
    The top languages developers said they will learn were, Go, Python, Scala, Kotlin, and Ruby.
    There is a large gap between employers seeking developers that know React than there are folks that can do it.

So, Why Learn Python?
It is now the most popular introductory teaching language in U.S. universities.  Python is easy to use, powerful, and versatile, making it a great choice for beginners and experts alike. It allows you to think like a programmer and not waste time understanding difficult syntax that other programming languages can command. And, because of its rapid growth, many developers contribute to the Python community and share Python libraries making creativity that much more a reality

I suspect that many of you are familiar with the term "hard coding a value" whereby the age of an individual or their location is written into the condition (or action) of a business rule (in this case) as shown below:

if customer.age > 21 and customer.city == 'denver'

then ...

Such coding practices are perfectly expectable provided that the conditional values, age and city, never change. They become entirely unacceptable if a need for different values could be anticipated. A classic example of where this practice occurred that caused considerable heartache in the IT industry was the Y2K issue where dates were updated using only the last 2 digits of a four digit number because the first 2 digits were hard-coded to 19 i.e. 1998, 1999. All was well provided that the date did not advance to a time beyond the 1900’s since no one could be certain of what would happen when the millennia arrived (2000). A considerably amount of work (albeit boring) and money, approximately $200 billion, went into revising systems by way of software rewrites and computer chip replacements in order to thwart any detrimental outcomes. It is obvious how a simple change or an assumption can have sweeping consequences.

You may wonder what Y2K has to do with Business Rule Management Systems (BRMS). Well, what if we considered rules themselves to be hard-coded. If we were to write 100s of rules in Java, .NET or whatever language that only worked for a given scenario or assumption, would that not constitute hard-coded logic? By hard-coded, we obviously mean compiled. For example, if a credit card company has a variety of bonus campaigns, each with their own unique list of rules that may change within a week’s time, what would be the most effective way of writing software to deal with these responsibilities?

I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!