> A lot of language concepts are shared and abstract. It’s not hard to know many languages proficiently.

Every language has thousands of papercuts. It is hard to know many languages proficiently beyond surface syntax level, period.

> I’d know C, C++, Swift, JavaScript, Python, Rust, MSL, HLSL, GLSL, MEL

Shipped !== know. I've touched dozens of languages over my career and every time I've had my ass kicked by some esoteric knowledge of specific quirk in std of %lang%. We have a different definition of "know".

▲

dagmx 3 days ago | parent [-]

Now you’re just shifting the goalpost.

You initially said beyond a surface level and now you’re talking about esoteric quirks.

Pick one. Of course nobody has the same definition as you if you’re shifting the line and simultaneously not defining what you mean.

You don’t need to know every aspect of a languages corners to be proficient in it. If that were true, there’s only a handful of people on this planet who’d be proficient in a single language let alone multiple.

▲

wiseowise 3 days ago | parent [-]

> If that were true, there’s only a handful of people on this planet who’d be proficient in a single language let alone multiple.

This was indeed my point from the start.

▲

dagmx 3 days ago | parent [-]

I’m just trying to understand what your bar is for “knowing a language”

Is there a language you’d feel comfortable saying you know every single aspect of, without exception? Down to every compiler and implementation quirk?

	▲	wiseowise 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes.