You realize the web started with just HTML at first right?

The web was always meant to be a platform anyone could easily build on, whether they were experts or someone's little old grandma who barely knew what a keyboard was.

Not only is it gatekeeping, it's historically wrong and betrays a flawed understanding of the platform. The web has always been about ease of use and there have always been people who went out of their way to teach others how to make good use of it.

Yes, the web is broken, but the web is broken because it's no longer about everyone running a little shoebox of a server and instead now we depend on giants who see us as cattle.

A lot of it is affordances. Every function signature is a user interface for your fellow programmer.

And if you are used to poorly-designed UI, you will expect poorly-designed UI from yourself.

Less testing, Documentation, Guarding against typos, better IDE support, better performance;

But there is a whole new generation of web developers who don't bother to learn algorithms or low level programming, and just churn out code with that hot new framework. That kind of programmers are also the ones that choose a technology because "it looks easier".

The world would be nice if management people understood not all programmers are equal, the 10x programmer is not a myth. But here on HN or reddit you see most people arguing that all programmers are similarly productive. And what we get for this is more electron apps.

> the 10x programmer is not a myth

You are right that quality of programmer skill and productivity has high variance, but the way people talked about the "10x programmer" was a vague vision that people pasted their ideas and personal bugaboos onto. So people got into increasingly-heated arguments and talked past each other. When we create social concepts, we need to strive for something like falsifiability -- something that lets you look at an example and say "Well actually no, thats not 'high-performing programmer' behavior -- for {{describable reason}}"

Categories matter. We should shape our categories for human happiness and human effectiveness, but categories matter.

I think it's really not that some programmers do 10x more, but some people with the same job title do a different job. Some engineers take responsibility for product or for ecosystem; some engineers tick off tasks on a list. (Both can be very valid, and bleeding for product quality at a company is definitely not inherently good.)

Is less because there are a few 10x programmers, and more because there are a whole hell of a lot of 0.1x programmers.

True. That was a vague notion. I think Joel Spolsky's "Hitting the high notes" summarized it better.

> Less testing

Why?

For example functions only take objects of supported types. Many invariants are verifiable at compile time. Especially when you have generics, structural typing and ADTs, the expressiveness is pretty good.