Few people would accuse airline pilots, surgeons, construction engineers of snobbery for demanding high standards.
When it comes to software, challenging this "everything goes" culture is called "snobbery".
People are called "senior engineer" after 2 years of copypasting javascript from stack overflow - and become "proficient" in a language in a week.
And yet we wonder why so much software is bloated, unreliable, insecure, overly expensive to develop.
> and become "proficient" in a language in a week.
I'd argue that this might not be a stretch in some situations. If you have a lot of software development experience in varied environments (back end, front end, desktop, command line tools, embedded, etc.) and with various dissimilar programming languages (static/dynamic, compiled/interpreted, Algol-inspired/not-Algol inspired, etc.), you should at some point be able to pick up a language at a decent rate.
And even though you won't master its idioms, unlike a total newbie, you'll be aware that you don't know its idioms. A sort of "known unknowns", if you will.
There's having standards and there's snobbery. Rejecting a language simply because it doesn't fit your conception of what a language should be is snobbery.
I've chosen Go for projects specifically because it produces better software (within certain contexts). A fast simple binary, a simple language (so co-workers can look and hack on the code), etc.
To act like people are picking Go because they are ignorant or stupid or lazy (which is what the notion of "blub" always is) is unfair and lazy.
When it comes to software, challenging this "everything goes" culture is called "snobbery". People are called "senior engineer" after 2 years of copypasting javascript from stack overflow - and become "proficient" in a language in a week.
And yet we wonder why so much software is bloated, unreliable, insecure, overly expensive to develop.