it might be more impressive to switch to something less ridiculously simple than Python.
Why? Do you get extra points for doing things the hard way? As opposed to: choosing the right tool for the job.
(I am not familiar enough with Python, so this is not a comment endorsing Python, just a reaction to the "less ridiculously simple" part. If two programs do the same thing, what's wrong with the simpler one?)
I consistently forget to account for the halo effect, and that it may be in part because I wish to believe it does not exist.
Yeah. We programmers are proud of our ability to write complex code, so we wish complex code was the most admired thing about computer programs. Unfortunately, most people are impressed by nice screenshots. (At the first moment. When they use the program for some time, they start caring also about things like working properly, not crashing, etc. But to get them there, you need a nice screenshot first.)
"Why? Do you get extra points for doing things the hard way? As opposed to: choosing the right tool for the job."
I don't know what potential employers are looking for (and now I realize that I haven't even tried to find out), but I would expect them to be more impressed with a thing if I were to do it in a more 'difficult' language than if I did the same thing in a language that needed only two lines of code for the job. My focus is on signaling my skill, rather than completing the program itself.
Then again, I'm thinking it would be even more impressive to learn Python's deepest secrets and exploit them to the max.
This is the public group instrumental rationality diary for September 16-30.
Thanks to cata for starting the Group Rationality Diary posts, and to commenters for participating!
Immediate past diary: September 1-15
Rationality Diaries archive