Yes, we are doing things the wrong way. Mainly because we're such a huge company and to even agree that we need more frameworks than the home grown JS or JQuery requires several extensive meetings, evaluations, considerations...and blah blah blah. By the time you're ready to start developing you'll either be burning money trying to decide what framework makes your code look the cutest or you'll be doing everything you can to meet your deadlines. What do you think the priority will be? And what does it say about a company when project XYZ used frameworks 1 and 2 while project ABC used frameworks 3 and 4? In large companies you don't make a lot of the decisions in what you write or what you write with. And you certainly don't get to just up and download anything you think will help you.
On the element ID thing. Of course it is low level but what makes more sense to you?
$('customerName').show();
or
$('textfield123').show();
Do I really need to explain that? I would think it would be rather obvious.
complaint of yours almost sounds to me like you're doing things manually that the machine could do automatically.
Right I forgot about that built in JavaScript command that gets all of a client's past transactions without needing to worry about any data structures or ajax request and then displays it on the screen allowing the user to sort by multiple columns, edit specific fields, resubmit that data back to the server, popup a jquery modal with dynamically asigned data....seriously dood are you kidding me?
It wasn't designed to be used for big projects, so it lacks direct implementations of namespaces and other big project language features, but you can get around those limitations because the language is quite flexible.
In my most recent projects we did use Namespaces where we could. We also used JavaScripts bastardized version of OOP class syntax. Do you know how many developers in the company or on the project even understood that class syntax? Not many. Even the guy who wrote them (me myself and I) find them horrible to manage when dealing with even simple updates to POJOs in Java that then also must be reflected in the JavaScript class constructors. Poor design I'm sure you'll be claiming...but let's be clear...we had zero control over the gui requirements. There was no other alternative after considering alternatives for months...so don't pipe up claiming anyone that is a critic of JavaScript simply doesn't understand it. I understand it fine...and no JavaScript I've written or have seen written is as easily understood as any number of other languages when you get past just simple dhtml.
The point anyone against JavaScript will make is something I don't anything could disagree with. JavaScript was not designed to do the things we are doing with it today. That is the reason why it's so difficult to maintain JavaScript. If all we were doing with it was simple math or simple DOM changes then no sweat...
. It's possible to create maintainable code, but the language fights you.
A thousand times this!!!
I work in a large company where we have a different GUI team that designs our screens. Increasingly over the past few years they have been building screens with more and more JavaScript requirements. Users seem to want to see everything dynamically loaded...page replaces are somehow evil and ugly...give me a fucking break already...if they had any idea how much more it costs them to build the screens they design they wouldn't be doing it.
Pretty screens == almost impossible to maintain code. It's as simple as that and until something better comes along than JavaScript it's going to be a nightmare for most of us to deal with production issues. What's worse is when not even id's of elements on the page make sense so you wind up with id's that make the JavaScript code look even more confusing. I've built some of the most complex systems at my company that are heavy in JavaScript. We did a great job according to everyone around. But I know there are some things we can never correct because of the language we are dealing with.
In all of the above scenarios you put forward it required another active influence in the local government. Regardless if it is criminal bribery, lack of proper environmental regulations, or legalized brutality towards civilians the point is it would not be possible if there was not already some form of corruption already in place in that 3rd world country. It is not as if these companies just got up one day and decided they would invade and kill civilians to make a point. Their motive was greed. Terrorists may claim their motive is freedom but it's far more likely their motives are more about staking a claim to power either global or local regardless of why their movement may have started....it is usually quickly forgotten from what I've seen in my limited view through US media.
My point is a corporation can not wilfully go into any governed state and decide to do as they wish. Their actions are sanctioned by the local corrupt government. Even though taking a stand against a corrupt government becomes more and more difficult with the influence of technology, it is still the responsibility of the people of a government to ensure their government listens to the people and does right by them. Surely you could even say the US government with bought laws in congress has its own problems.
A terrorist actively seeks out to murder and inflict great harm to a civilian population to try and deter the will of the people (which as we've seen will never ever work but only aims to polarize the world. Yet we've seen a few terrorist leaders attempt to appeal to the common civilian population of an enemy state because they realize once the people are united with the government in arms against them...no terrorist group can fight against hundreds of millions of people hell bent on their destruction). If you are to equate the active murder of civilians with that of collateral damage or that of the wake of a corporation's greed...then I'm afraid your moral code has been a bit to much open for discussion with college kids looking for a good paper to write...or maybe you're watching the wrong kind of media brainwashing?
The taking or harming of any life is wrong, period. To excuse a terrorist act as an eye for an eye or as some form of retribution is ignoring the entire grey area between what an evil corporation does and what a terrorist does. While I would never agree with any terrorist movement (because they have explored about zero other options and they are not attacking or dealing with their real issues but instead feeding pre-existing feelings of hatred for a grab at power...local multi state government reform is honestly what the focus should have been for them...but that's a bit more risky than pissing off the big oger in the corner) I would at least accept their actions if they kept all of their acts of violence towards valid targets. But then you have to ask yourself of what qualifies as a nation or a voice that should even be listened to.
As horrid as our planet is the point is there are a lot of ways for a terrorist organization to get what they want. The second they attack a civilian population they are immediately viewed by the entire world (rightly so) as a criminal organization that must be put to death. Maybe if they want it to be socially acceptable to kill people they should've started a corporation and bribed off some local government to allow them to pollute and kill off villages of civilians...hmm sounds like a bond movie or something.
I don't believe any civilian in the US is ignorant to the fact that corporations control their lives and the laws they must abide to. Government corruption is nothing new. Based on your sig I would assume you're well aware of the very large LEGAL movement to separate this connection. Anger, hate, and a lust for power are very different vices than greed. You should know the difference. They are both fools you can control with a few carrots in the right places...but one is a lot more destructive than the other. I know that
I've never agreed with Monsanto. However their actions are very similar to many other large corps such as MicroSoft. Contrast what Monsanto is doing to what SCO did to Linux or what the RIAA MPAA did to small time music downloaders. Extortion maybe a more appropriate word to use? Home grown or self made products have a long list of government regulations put there by large companies to hinder and prevent small businesses from entering into the market. The problem is a lot larger than Monsanto and is more related to what narcissistic corporate entities have turned into all in search of pleasing stock holders. But I still wouldn't call it terrorism...maybe capitalism and monopolistic greed??
I saw this image a few days ago comparing star war rebels with that of terrorists...maybe I'm just reacting to that. I think blurring that line between what real terrorism is brings validity to terrorist acts as just another aspect of life no less evil than that of large corporations. I think we should be clear that terrorism are violent acts or the suggestion of violence towards civilian populations. No matter how unsettling it maybe...legal court cases are never terrorist acts of violence. While what corporations do to 3rd world countries and 1st world country small businesses is unsettling, their acts are not designed to terrorize those that can not defend themselves. They are just blind fools following their only vice. Terrorists deserve a special place in hell (if you believe in that)...while board members and ceos might only deserve a summer home there. So don't get me wrong, I hate them too...but they are not terrorists.
Maybe to clarify things you should repost what you wrote by replacing MBA with "the boss", because that's what the "young MBA is". You might not like the decisions but the point is they are in the lead for a reason. We have zero understanding of why "the boss" decided to bring in other thoughts on the subject. If it's anything like the company I work for "the boss" is trying to make sure everyone is on board with the plan so if shit hits the fan one guy doesn't get fired, just everyone gets bitched at instead. While it may seem like he's slowing things down, "the boss" might actually be saving both his job and this spec writing poster's job.
Ok. I live in a country with 300 million plus inhabitants. Why should I care about a country with 8 million? Likewise why should someone in china give two craps about US tech news...
I should explain "not to hard" - registering the business isn't hard...everything else is. But it's not to hard to at least get started and be able to build projects that you own entirely.
One of the things a lot of good developers forget is that they don't own the company they work for. They also are NOT the MBA that was assigned to the project. While I know every good developer wants to see a finished polished project that works perfectly, the point is that is NOT just up to you.
If you want to keep your sanity, know your responsibilities and stick to them. Express your opinion to your immediate boss. If they don't agree then you should probably drop it. If you want to be your own manager and CEO start a company on the side, it isn't hard. Then you can do whatever you want with YOUR code. But the point is the project you are on and the code you write in any large company does NOT BELONG TO YOU. So don't take anything to personally and learn to drop what you are not responsible for.
I'm not saying you shouldn't care, just know your place. Few people like a whiner and it's not likely you get any credit even if they do change the direction of the project. The credit goes to everyone.
I'll take it whoever came up with this question obviously has little or no QA department. The company I work for sometimes has thousands of automatic and manual scripts to get through before a "release" can be approved. It can and does take months to complete this. The idea we could ever promote once a week is a nightmare to consider.
If you don't allow for proper testing you may break something and not realize it until months later. This could cause serious problems such as capturing invalid data, to something simple as an odd gui quirk. In one case you may open yourself up to lawsuits and in the other you may find it nearly impossible to track down when and why something broke.
Don't be so eager to get your fixes out the door...they don't always just fix something.
My sexual needs are sated, thanks. But at 13, I would have loved to been "raped" by a 30 year old. I know there are other 13 year olds out there who would like that opportunity. I still don't see any reason to deny them that.
Wow, are you fucking kidding me? How about we take that 13 year old (obviously boy) you used to be and see how he enjoys being raped by a man or a really really ugly fat woman? You're obviously childless...come back when you've grown up a bit.
go to staff meetings you weren't invited to and speak up with useful input.
I agree with the helpdesk thing, and it is who you know/talk to not what you know. But this is probably just a great way to annoy the crap out of people.
You can download and learn to use an oracle DB without paying for a license unless things have changed since I did. Check with their OTN site. Admin work has a steep learning curve though for Oracle so hope you find a really really good book...but DB2 at least to me is far worse to learn.
Um...have you seen how much it costs to complete a "law school"? In terms of costs vs ROI for degrees...between law and engineering you'd be better sticking with engineering. It's cheaper to get...and despite what you may have heard not every lawyer goes to court and gets paid 400/hr.
^^^^THIS. I can't agree with this more. This is the biggest issue with getting into the field. Just because contractors and outsourcing is a small percentage of all IT workers does not mean they don't drastically impact the employability of everyone in the industry.
The IT staff of Universities that I know of do not outsource or use a vendor. They do in fact have their own IT staff. Most are students simply because they can get free tuition. You can't open a production system to be the play toy of every two bit college student that wants real world experience. There is a reason they're in college and there is a reason they don't get hired straight out of the door. IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING REQUIRED TO DO THE JOB!!!! 1-2 semesters working on some small project on Java and a bunch of trivial basic courses in software development is not an acceptable level of knowledge. A computer science degree that teaches you some EE courses, a crap load of basic courses in multiple languages, and basic design classes is a very good start. It's still just a start and has no comparison to real world systems. Sure there are a few bright ones but most are not die hard tech heads...and even the ones that are have a crap load to learn before anyone should trust them to code something in the real world. I've only met 2 fresh out of college grads out of many that I'd trust on a production system. A University's IT and programming needs is a production system will real world risk/lawsuits if someone fucks something up.
The real problem is instead of people like me training fresh college grads on our systems I'm training contractors from India. At least in my company that's why I believe "no experience" jobs are almost impossible to find. They'd rather give those positions to contractors from India they can axe if they aren't worth anything.
Cops and FBI agents are paid less than a lot of IT workers. Pay range should not be the driving force behind the corruptability of someone. Let's face it, if an IT worker was going to rip of a company or commit an illegal act they'll be doing it for a lot more than anything someone in that pay range would be getting paid.
I disagree with #1. The best IT people are hard working and NOT lazy in the least. The best IT people even in IT are the go to person. If someone knows you have knowledge about a given subject or even believes speaking to you could cut the time they spend on something in half...they will talk to you first. It is true that they move from one project to the next...but to imply they are Lazy is not in the least bit correct. The company pushes them as hard as they can because they know they can do whatever task is assigned to them.
On #4 I agree completely. No company is going to give you a raise unless their hand is forced. I've seen several situations where an idiot looks for another job, tells his boss he got a job offer and suddenly he gets promoted. I've also seen situations where the best IT guy in the world never gets promoted above what he could find in the field with his experience because HR knows that's his market value...regardless of how much a guru he is they get promoted based on market value and not based on merit.
If you don't work for a company that forces you to develop in language xyz then you should pick the language that fits your needs...not pick a language and then start writing away. Yes...most languages can be bent upside down and backwards to do almost anything. That's ignoring the point though.
You're completely free to choose. Most of us don't have that luxury. Study carefully what you want to do and pick the best language for that task. Do not ask a large group of tech heads what language they love best. All we are going to do is preach up and down what we use the most. I use J2EE at work and PHP at home. For old school applications that actually exist on the freaken computer they are being used on...I honestly like QT but I'd love to have another chance to try python as a long time ago I did some work with tcl/tk.
Regardless of what you pick someone is going to have a problem with your choice. In fact if you're looking forward to years of development chances are the language you choose may not be the language of choice for new projects when you finally get around to finishing it off.
Pick the right language for the job...don't pick the most popular language out there unless you're looking to be employed again in the field.
Slashdot Mirror
On the element ID thing. Of course it is low level but what makes more sense to you?
$('customerName').show();
or
$('textfield123').show();
Do I really need to explain that? I would think it would be rather obvious.
complaint of yours almost sounds to me like you're doing things manually that the machine could do automatically.
Right I forgot about that built in JavaScript command that gets all of a client's past transactions without needing to worry about any data structures or ajax request and then displays it on the screen allowing the user to sort by multiple columns, edit specific fields, resubmit that data back to the server, popup a jquery modal with dynamically asigned data....seriously dood are you kidding me?
it can be awesome.
Are you kidding me? Just because you can do something with a language doesn't mean you should.
It wasn't designed to be used for big projects, so it lacks direct implementations of namespaces and other big project language features, but you can get around those limitations because the language is quite flexible.
In my most recent projects we did use Namespaces where we could. We also used JavaScripts bastardized version of OOP class syntax. Do you know how many developers in the company or on the project even understood that class syntax? Not many. Even the guy who wrote them (me myself and I) find them horrible to manage when dealing with even simple updates to POJOs in Java that then also must be reflected in the JavaScript class constructors. Poor design I'm sure you'll be claiming...but let's be clear...we had zero control over the gui requirements. There was no other alternative after considering alternatives for months...so don't pipe up claiming anyone that is a critic of JavaScript simply doesn't understand it. I understand it fine...and no JavaScript I've written or have seen written is as easily understood as any number of other languages when you get past just simple dhtml.
The point anyone against JavaScript will make is something I don't anything could disagree with. JavaScript was not designed to do the things we are doing with it today. That is the reason why it's so difficult to maintain JavaScript. If all we were doing with it was simple math or simple DOM changes then no sweat...
. It's possible to create maintainable code, but the language fights you.
A thousand times this!!!
I work in a large company where we have a different GUI team that designs our screens. Increasingly over the past few years they have been building screens with more and more JavaScript requirements. Users seem to want to see everything dynamically loaded...page replaces are somehow evil and ugly...give me a fucking break already...if they had any idea how much more it costs them to build the screens they design they wouldn't be doing it.
Pretty screens == almost impossible to maintain code. It's as simple as that and until something better comes along than JavaScript it's going to be a nightmare for most of us to deal with production issues. What's worse is when not even id's of elements on the page make sense so you wind up with id's that make the JavaScript code look even more confusing. I've built some of the most complex systems at my company that are heavy in JavaScript. We did a great job according to everyone around. But I know there are some things we can never correct because of the language we are dealing with.
In all of the above scenarios you put forward it required another active influence in the local government. Regardless if it is criminal bribery, lack of proper environmental regulations, or legalized brutality towards civilians the point is it would not be possible if there was not already some form of corruption already in place in that 3rd world country. It is not as if these companies just got up one day and decided they would invade and kill civilians to make a point. Their motive was greed. Terrorists may claim their motive is freedom but it's far more likely their motives are more about staking a claim to power either global or local regardless of why their movement may have started....it is usually quickly forgotten from what I've seen in my limited view through US media.
My point is a corporation can not wilfully go into any governed state and decide to do as they wish. Their actions are sanctioned by the local corrupt government. Even though taking a stand against a corrupt government becomes more and more difficult with the influence of technology, it is still the responsibility of the people of a government to ensure their government listens to the people and does right by them. Surely you could even say the US government with bought laws in congress has its own problems.
A terrorist actively seeks out to murder and inflict great harm to a civilian population to try and deter the will of the people (which as we've seen will never ever work but only aims to polarize the world. Yet we've seen a few terrorist leaders attempt to appeal to the common civilian population of an enemy state because they realize once the people are united with the government in arms against them...no terrorist group can fight against hundreds of millions of people hell bent on their destruction). If you are to equate the active murder of civilians with that of collateral damage or that of the wake of a corporation's greed...then I'm afraid your moral code has been a bit to much open for discussion with college kids looking for a good paper to write...or maybe you're watching the wrong kind of media brainwashing?
The taking or harming of any life is wrong, period. To excuse a terrorist act as an eye for an eye or as some form of retribution is ignoring the entire grey area between what an evil corporation does and what a terrorist does. While I would never agree with any terrorist movement (because they have explored about zero other options and they are not attacking or dealing with their real issues but instead feeding pre-existing feelings of hatred for a grab at power...local multi state government reform is honestly what the focus should have been for them...but that's a bit more risky than pissing off the big oger in the corner) I would at least accept their actions if they kept all of their acts of violence towards valid targets. But then you have to ask yourself of what qualifies as a nation or a voice that should even be listened to.
As horrid as our planet is the point is there are a lot of ways for a terrorist organization to get what they want. The second they attack a civilian population they are immediately viewed by the entire world (rightly so) as a criminal organization that must be put to death. Maybe if they want it to be socially acceptable to kill people they should've started a corporation and bribed off some local government to allow them to pollute and kill off villages of civilians...hmm sounds like a bond movie or something.
I don't believe any civilian in the US is ignorant to the fact that corporations control their lives and the laws they must abide to. Government corruption is nothing new. Based on your sig I would assume you're well aware of the very large LEGAL movement to separate this connection. Anger, hate, and a lust for power are very different vices than greed. You should know the difference. They are both fools you can control with a few carrots in the right places...but one is a lot more destructive than the other. I know that
http://www.macrotrends.org/1334/us-dollar-index-gold-and-oil-historical-chart
From the same site. Five years isn't enough of a picture to suggest that gold and oil always has value while the dollar does not.
I've never agreed with Monsanto. However their actions are very similar to many other large corps such as MicroSoft. Contrast what Monsanto is doing to what SCO did to Linux or what the RIAA MPAA did to small time music downloaders. Extortion maybe a more appropriate word to use? Home grown or self made products have a long list of government regulations put there by large companies to hinder and prevent small businesses from entering into the market. The problem is a lot larger than Monsanto and is more related to what narcissistic corporate entities have turned into all in search of pleasing stock holders. But I still wouldn't call it terrorism...maybe capitalism and monopolistic greed??
I saw this image a few days ago comparing star war rebels with that of terrorists...maybe I'm just reacting to that. I think blurring that line between what real terrorism is brings validity to terrorist acts as just another aspect of life no less evil than that of large corporations. I think we should be clear that terrorism are violent acts or the suggestion of violence towards civilian populations. No matter how unsettling it maybe...legal court cases are never terrorist acts of violence. While what corporations do to 3rd world countries and 1st world country small businesses is unsettling, their acts are not designed to terrorize those that can not defend themselves. They are just blind fools following their only vice. Terrorists deserve a special place in hell (if you believe in that)...while board members and ceos might only deserve a summer home there. So don't get me wrong, I hate them too...but they are not terrorists.
None of them believe in false stuff
What if believing that smoking weed has no bad side affects...is a false belief!?!?!!!!
Reeves
makes it money through legal terrorism
Ok, lay off the documentaries...seriously dood...
Maybe to clarify things you should repost what you wrote by replacing MBA with "the boss", because that's what the "young MBA is". You might not like the decisions but the point is they are in the lead for a reason. We have zero understanding of why "the boss" decided to bring in other thoughts on the subject. If it's anything like the company I work for "the boss" is trying to make sure everyone is on board with the plan so if shit hits the fan one guy doesn't get fired, just everyone gets bitched at instead. While it may seem like he's slowing things down, "the boss" might actually be saving both his job and this spec writing poster's job.
Anyone that trusts a 20 year old to manage a project with a 6 million dollar budget is insane. Just saying...
Ok. I live in a country with 300 million plus inhabitants. Why should I care about a country with 8 million? Likewise why should someone in china give two craps about US tech news...
I should explain "not to hard" - registering the business isn't hard...everything else is. But it's not to hard to at least get started and be able to build projects that you own entirely.
One of the things a lot of good developers forget is that they don't own the company they work for. They also are NOT the MBA that was assigned to the project. While I know every good developer wants to see a finished polished project that works perfectly, the point is that is NOT just up to you.
If you want to keep your sanity, know your responsibilities and stick to them. Express your opinion to your immediate boss. If they don't agree then you should probably drop it. If you want to be your own manager and CEO start a company on the side, it isn't hard. Then you can do whatever you want with YOUR code. But the point is the project you are on and the code you write in any large company does NOT BELONG TO YOU. So don't take anything to personally and learn to drop what you are not responsible for.
I'm not saying you shouldn't care, just know your place. Few people like a whiner and it's not likely you get any credit even if they do change the direction of the project. The credit goes to everyone.
I'll take it whoever came up with this question obviously has little or no QA department. The company I work for sometimes has thousands of automatic and manual scripts to get through before a "release" can be approved. It can and does take months to complete this. The idea we could ever promote once a week is a nightmare to consider.
If you don't allow for proper testing you may break something and not realize it until months later. This could cause serious problems such as capturing invalid data, to something simple as an odd gui quirk. In one case you may open yourself up to lawsuits and in the other you may find it nearly impossible to track down when and why something broke.
Don't be so eager to get your fixes out the door...they don't always just fix something.
My sexual needs are sated, thanks. But at 13, I would have loved to been "raped" by a 30 year old. I know there are other 13 year olds out there who would like that opportunity. I still don't see any reason to deny them that.
Wow, are you fucking kidding me? How about we take that 13 year old (obviously boy) you used to be and see how he enjoys being raped by a man or a really really ugly fat woman? You're obviously childless...come back when you've grown up a bit.
So his entire programming career was to learn java and nothing else?
go to staff meetings you weren't invited to and speak up with useful input.
I agree with the helpdesk thing, and it is who you know/talk to not what you know. But this is probably just a great way to annoy the crap out of people.
You can download and learn to use an oracle DB without paying for a license unless things have changed since I did. Check with their OTN site. Admin work has a steep learning curve though for Oracle so hope you find a really really good book...but DB2 at least to me is far worse to learn.
Um...have you seen how much it costs to complete a "law school"? In terms of costs vs ROI for degrees...between law and engineering you'd be better sticking with engineering. It's cheaper to get...and despite what you may have heard not every lawyer goes to court and gets paid 400/hr.
^^^^THIS. I can't agree with this more. This is the biggest issue with getting into the field. Just because contractors and outsourcing is a small percentage of all IT workers does not mean they don't drastically impact the employability of everyone in the industry.
The IT staff of Universities that I know of do not outsource or use a vendor. They do in fact have their own IT staff. Most are students simply because they can get free tuition. You can't open a production system to be the play toy of every two bit college student that wants real world experience. There is a reason they're in college and there is a reason they don't get hired straight out of the door. IT'S BECAUSE THEY KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING REQUIRED TO DO THE JOB!!!! 1-2 semesters working on some small project on Java and a bunch of trivial basic courses in software development is not an acceptable level of knowledge. A computer science degree that teaches you some EE courses, a crap load of basic courses in multiple languages, and basic design classes is a very good start. It's still just a start and has no comparison to real world systems. Sure there are a few bright ones but most are not die hard tech heads...and even the ones that are have a crap load to learn before anyone should trust them to code something in the real world. I've only met 2 fresh out of college grads out of many that I'd trust on a production system. A University's IT and programming needs is a production system will real world risk/lawsuits if someone fucks something up.
The real problem is instead of people like me training fresh college grads on our systems I'm training contractors from India. At least in my company that's why I believe "no experience" jobs are almost impossible to find. They'd rather give those positions to contractors from India they can axe if they aren't worth anything.
Cops and FBI agents are paid less than a lot of IT workers. Pay range should not be the driving force behind the corruptability of someone. Let's face it, if an IT worker was going to rip of a company or commit an illegal act they'll be doing it for a lot more than anything someone in that pay range would be getting paid.
I disagree with #1. The best IT people are hard working and NOT lazy in the least. The best IT people even in IT are the go to person. If someone knows you have knowledge about a given subject or even believes speaking to you could cut the time they spend on something in half...they will talk to you first. It is true that they move from one project to the next...but to imply they are Lazy is not in the least bit correct. The company pushes them as hard as they can because they know they can do whatever task is assigned to them.
On #4 I agree completely. No company is going to give you a raise unless their hand is forced. I've seen several situations where an idiot looks for another job, tells his boss he got a job offer and suddenly he gets promoted. I've also seen situations where the best IT guy in the world never gets promoted above what he could find in the field with his experience because HR knows that's his market value...regardless of how much a guru he is they get promoted based on market value and not based on merit.
If you don't work for a company that forces you to develop in language xyz then you should pick the language that fits your needs...not pick a language and then start writing away. Yes...most languages can be bent upside down and backwards to do almost anything. That's ignoring the point though.
You're completely free to choose. Most of us don't have that luxury. Study carefully what you want to do and pick the best language for that task. Do not ask a large group of tech heads what language they love best. All we are going to do is preach up and down what we use the most. I use J2EE at work and PHP at home. For old school applications that actually exist on the freaken computer they are being used on...I honestly like QT but I'd love to have another chance to try python as a long time ago I did some work with tcl/tk.
Regardless of what you pick someone is going to have a problem with your choice. In fact if you're looking forward to years of development chances are the language you choose may not be the language of choice for new projects when you finally get around to finishing it off.
Pick the right language for the job...don't pick the most popular language out there unless you're looking to be employed again in the field.