> Then you weren't interested in hardware programming; not one iota.

That is a bit of a leap. I read what (s)he meant as more "interested in programming hardware" - as in controlling hardware and making it do things. That doesn't mean you need to be interested in the low-level hardware side of things to be interested in making the hardware do stuff.

Failing to learn what it takes to solve a problem you have is not a viable business case. One doesn't simply decide:

"no this product i want to exist is impossible because I can't be bothered learning something new or because I have a non-technical and non-financial hipster-hued-bias against the existing commoditised technologies that lead me be able to solve the problem."

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Who said anything about solving problems? Viable business cases?

if you have something you need to get done for work or otherwise, you use the most appropriate product.

if you "want to learn about hardware" you use the tools and resources that presently exist or make you own. Otherwise you do not want to learn about anything, you just want to screw around so you can tell your boss you are a hardware expert in ruby or some bollocks.

This is exactly what I meant. I have no interest in learning languages for learning languages sake.

I am interested in making hardware do cool stuff though.

Never realized I needed an interpreter for that - but you did a great job!

> I have no interest in learning languages for learning languages sake

You wouldn't be learning it "for the sake of learning the language". You would be learning the language so you could "make... hardware do cool stuff"