And THIS is what keeps you up at night?
Strange. I get paid a lot more than I used to yet my primary responsibility is still writing code, which I enjoy doing. If you don't enjoy it, for the love of sanity, don't be a programmer with dreams of "moving up." That would be stupid because you'd resent the hours you weren't getting paid to learn new stuff all the time and you might end up looking down on people you never understood, and who you, man or woman, never had any appreciation for.
You're assuming they're smart and reasonable. They are a large organization. They have smart and reasonable people here and there I'm sure but as an entity they are no longer either of those. The people calling the shots want their problems solved. They don't care about getting them solved well. They just want their to-do items crossed off.
The Washington Times is about as credible as a lobbyist.
Crockford's role isn't to teach people how to write better JS. It's to makes Java devs feel better about struggling with the fact that JS is similar to Java in terms of syntax but very different in terms of design, which is something they struggle with because they never understood Java in terms of its design in the first place nine times out of ten.
If your code as verbose as what it took you to establish:
* I've been writing code for a very long time
* I don't like it's type system
I learned JS first but I have worked with C#, Java, Python, PHP, Ruby via Rails and am starting to dabble in C/C++ because I like the idea of having JS at an architectural level with C/C++ bindings handling stuff closer to the chrome. Of those languages I have plenty to criticize but really only find Java to be exceptionally silly. A language and culture so mired in protecting you from your own stupidity and the stupidity of other mediocre developers that it's impossible to get anything done without a thousand lines of code.
Is it possible your decade in Java has taught you some bad habits? Because I for one find the popularity of notions like test-first TDD to be an indicator that we have a whole hell of a lot of developers who have less confidence in their code than they should have before they've gone and committed to a maintainability disaster by loading tests in front of every little piece of it rather than actually learning to leverage architecture to test at key points but also make the code a lot more maintainable/modifiable without a dozen whack-a-mole-bugs or the equivalent, tests breaking, at every little tweak.
I have found that of all the messed up janky legacy codebases I've ever inherited it's the Java devs who appear to understand basic fundamental OOP concepts the least. They basically write procedural C code with pointless class syntax wrapping everything and they make a god-damned awful mess.
* You are comparing Perl to JS as if one replaced the other. Perl was never a client-side language. Or if it ever was, it was never a popular cross-platform option that didn't require a plug-in but certainly it wasn't in the contexts you've been referencing. And JS was primarily a client-side web language long before it ever became available and ultimately popular as a server-side option.
* There being an explosion of libraries is not generally considered a weakness in a language unless you are required to use every last one of them to get anything done. I assure you, you are not. I don't even link jQuery half the time nowadays because most of the value adds it brings are now available through native JS or DOM features and browser support for standards (i.e. compatibility) are actually better now than they ever have been, not worse as you suggested.
There are still plenty of avenues into a career writing code sans a CS degree. Web UI was mine. One Node.js developer can accomplish an awful lot.
Don't get me wrong. I hate all the industry Kool Aid but there's a fine line between sticking with the best tools for the job and falling way behind on the latest developments. There's an awful lot of Java and C developers out there who get agitated when required to work with any other language then the one true supreme solution. If you're not learning regularly or never wanted to learn after college in the first place, it's best to get on the management track ASAP.
I'm 40. New(ish) to 'tech but on computers since the Atari 800. 99% of software development practice is crap. But people don't keep trying to invent new stuff for no reason. What we do in days in UI now used to require months of extensive testing and couldn't be rearranged constantly.
As for the loyalty factor, have you spent most of your career with a 401k? I'm 40 and I haven't. Never even seen matching in my tech career which started '07ish. When I see a resume from a younger candidate that doesn't have job-hopping at least in the early portion, it makes me wonder if they weren't good enough or confident enough to take that 10-20% pay increase every year or so at the jr-mid-level because modern day corporations don't do much to engender loyalty.
UI is disposable. Design is disposable. YOU are disposable. That's not on this tech generation as much as I hate what they've done with San Francisco. It's not on my generation. It's on the generation in here that's giving itself a pat on the back for inventing everything (that's a bit of a stretch) and is now confused by the fact that much of it (older tech and the people) has been disposed of.
Is it a coincidence that Chicago is among the farthest from any coastal shoreline? If you're a member of the Heartland Institute and you aren't filled with self-loathing you're a !@#$ing sociopath.
People are horribly stupid when it comes to casting. Even former actors who should know better can't stop putting good actors in boxes. My wife, also an excellent actor, has moved into casting and is rapidly building a reputation at being great at it. The people she finds regularly bring more to their roles than even the role's authors knew was there. But she has to fight people all the time on whether actors fit an overly specific look or preconceptions they have about what their ethnicity or race will "bring" to a role to the point of trading off spectacular amounts of talent for mediocrity. This is in spite of what anybody who watches theater regularly should know. Actor talent or lack thereof can make or break just about anything. Actor stereo-typing is very simple-minded but also very common and everybody knows Star Wars. Directors and casting directors should know better but being in any popular sci-fi/fantasy film can be a tough box to climb out of.
That said, Portman hasn't been more than good enough for a role since she was a kid and I haven't seen Christensen in anything else, but the dialog in SW has always been a challenge and I don't 100% blame directing for them looking as bad as they do up there. Those actors in the original trilogy are working VERY hard in almost every scene. Neeson and McGregor rarely looked bad but you better believe some of that dialog reads something awful on the page. Only the empire deals in absolutes? He made it one more sentence beyond that before it occurred to me what a stupid line that was. That takes talent. Not to mention his gradual morphing into somebody who might actually be Alec Guinness in 20 years. Impressive work.
But let's completely black out Ep 2's romantical dung-heap. It's what I do most of the time. Even if we ignore that dialog/directing horror, Christensen pretty much manages to hit two notes through the entirety of the last two prequels, surly and remorseful. I'm sure directing didn't help him there and the role wasn't written with much opportunity to play for charisma but that's something the right actors can excrete through their pores if they have to. Ford's done it his entire career. He could have played being mad about his lack of rapid-Jedi-career advancement like it was a legitimate gripe. I mean really, this is a dude that's done some pretty amazing things for the Jedi and in return he gets way too much free time to hang out with evil senators and dead mom. But instead he comes off as a self-entitled brat. The right actor could have made me like him at least a little bit more but in the end the balance was tipped in favor of rooting for the lava.
Portman, even when given interesting things to do like be an action heroine, the ruler of an entire planet, or its representative in the senate is 99% flat-lining throughout the whole thing until the very end when she's heart-broken at which point she demonstrates her vulnerable pretty girl thing that she's mostly been hired for. Unfortunately it's far too late for anybody to care that her character is heart-broken. She's just not that good. She can do drama on the extremes and her narrow shtick but she's not up to being a mover and shaker in a galactic space opera that makes no sense whatsoever if you think too hard about it.
Don't get me wrong. I love Star Wars. They never had a good script. SW is great in spite of having horribly written scripts. Read that dialog on the page sometime. It's ALL amazingly bad. Then really think hard about the plots. Who builds the Death Star twice?
Fisher had a serious well-known drug problem that probably didn't help her post-SW. Portman at her very best has never been great but I do think both her and Christensen (who I've seen in nothing else) got hosed by those anti-romantic interactions. But to be fair, neither Leeson, nor McGregor ever looked bad in those movies. Or at least they looked good enough most of the time that the really atrocious lines didn't stick to them.
Here's how it works:
* The profit motive drives people to make more money.
* One inevitable outcome of that is that people innovate new ways of delivering high quality goods/services for less cost, create new industries with new jobs, and invent neat new things that enhance our quality of life. Almost everybody likes this. It works great. It's one reason most more-socialist-leaning governments in Europe still have predominantly market-driven economies in most sectors. Hell, even China has slowly but surely moved to a more market-driven economy. Mao himself tossed socialism out the door on their farming coops when that wasn't working out for them.
* Another inevitable outcome is that many will poison/murder/nuke the environment/your children/our schools/the legal system/our health/our quality of living/real estate/the global economy/the internet/very small dogs/etc... to make a higher percentage if there aren't any rules to prevent them from doing so. See Monsanto, the textbook industry, US children with lead poisoning from Chinese toys sold in the US, and other crap that makes news on a daily basis, etc... Consider that most other western nations have nationalized health care. And yes, there are downsides to that but what doesn't happen is that a minority of the most expensive patients are denied service that their coverage at least appeared to promise because that eats into somebody's margins but they know they can get away with it as long as 98% of their customers never have a problem with their service.
So, when our conservative friends start polishing that old chestnut about the "free" market it's because our new corporate overlords want them to start removing regulations that protect us from that third bullet point again for like the umpteenth time since the first naive fool actually took the words trickle-down economics seriously.
The notion of a free market is a paradox. It cannot exist because it would inevitably destroy itself. It's a game without rules that nobody wins. They know that but they can and will cheat at every opportunity we give them. So knock it off with this free market foolishness. It's naive and it's been making a tool out of libertarian and republican voters for decades now. There's a middle ground between having an excess of rules that hamper market growth unnecessarily and having next to no barriers to abuse whatsoever. That place isn't about being a moderate, it's about "duh." Because nothing else promotes a healthier, more vital capitalist sector than rules that guarantee competitive practices and protect us from abuse.
And when the very nature of a given sector, like health insurance, makes it near-impossible to regulate owing to extreme motivation to abuse given the profits and ease of getting away with it, just say !@#$ it and sprinkle a little socialism on the problem already. Healthy not-dead not-financially-ruined people buy more products and/or start new businesses. Health care is infrastructure. If we can operate health care reasonably at a small loss, it's well worth the investment to do so.
There's a whole new generation of JS devs who are complete slobs about dependencies. They will attach the entire Bootstrap library for one plug-in. I've seen libraries that embedded and minified it such that it wasn't even obvious they were using it and they weren't using it for much. 20 megabytes for a !@#$ing restful documentation widget whose own proprietary code was 20,000 lines long. It's just ridiculous. IMO, every client-side web dev should be forced to support IE6, then mobile, then write for the desktop browser. But people want the latest buzzwords, they want them fast and cheap and they want them now. This is what you get. A bunch of jr-level slobs writing e-commerce apps who knew what to say about how much they love these new frameworks at the interview.