[MaulingMonkey]

> Another was the not-clearly-defined term strong work ethic, by which I think he means someone who will strive to make the program work properly, not have horrible kludges, will avoid known problematic aspects of the language, etc.

Indeed. Using a different definition of "strong work ethic", I've met programmers who had too strong a "work ethic" - using it as an excuse or crutch to scoff at improvements to code readability or maintainability. After all, if you just power through it with enough overtime, you can wade through even the worst codebases, so why bother cleaning it up? To make things easier? And you want to take a break to step back, think on the problems, and discuss options instead of just sitting down and coding more? Sounds like you're just looking for excuses to be lazy - put down the coffee and get back to work!

Needless to say, this can lead to a lot of firefighting and damaged morale.

Ivory tower academics can get too caught up on theory to practice effectively. On the other hand, that's probably still preferable to the COBOL-only programmer that doesn't understand why things have changed since the 1970s - after all, COBOL can do anything your newfangled languages can! Better than either: Give me a practical polyglot. Preferably one who hates whatever terrible language we're going to be using, with a laundry list of issues that language has to back up that hate. Why such a hater? Because that hate sounds like the impassioned voice of experience with these problems (and how to mitigate or avoid them, even if one of those options - switching languages - isn't on the table.)