[endemic]

I think the argument is that for a good chunk of business work, you don't need to use the "interesting"/"deep" concepts. Sure, you'll need time to adapt to the idioms of the language you're using, but following examples you can be just as productive as others in a relatively short time.

[Shorel]

> I think the argument is that for a good chunk of business work, you don't need to use the "interesting"/"deep" concepts.

That's what the MBA people want to believe. To lower costs, or if they see writing code as an operating expense, instead of R&D.

If this is true or not, it depends on many, many factors, and it can change over the course of the business life.

[aleph_minus_one]

> but following examples you can be just as productive as others in a relatively short time.

This is not something nice to say about the colleagues. :-)

[rmah]

But companies don't pay high salaries for the 80% mundane and easy tasks you do day to day. They pay for the 20% that is challenging and especially for that 1% of problems that occur only once every few months or years. If that 80% was 100% of the job then the company could pay 1/2 to 1/3rd the amount by outsourcing it.

[edmundsauto]

I disagree, companies pay based on the problems you can solve to make them money or help achieve organizational goals. One of those ways can be coding, but there are many others.

[rmah]

I don't really see how that's a disagreement.