3 ms·

I never said "demanding a premium for their time" was hype. I said having to call yourself a "Software Engineer" or "Architect" instead of a programmer was hyp

by nocman 11y ago

I never said "demanding a premium for their time" was hype. I said having to call yourself a "Software Engineer" or "Architect" instead of a programmer was hype, and I still think it is. I'd personally rather have someone show me the real work they've done to convince me that they knew what they were doing, rather than giving themselves a meaningless title to convince me how good they are. There are plenty of "Software Engineers" and "Architects" out there that couldn't program their way out of a wet paper sack. Fundamentally our disagreement is on the importance of the title. Yes, I will concede that there are some people who will be impressed by it, and maybe even be a bit more likely to hire you because of it. I just don't think that's a good thing. I know too many people who have been burned by others who used such language, who actually didn't know what they were doing, and as a consequence others who did know what they were doing lost their jobs, and the company spent millions to try to recover, or just plain went out of business.

aantix 11y ago
We're actually on the same page. Proof of performance is a definite must while interviewing. The title does the initial framing of expectations, that's it. There's always going to be idiot consultants. And anyone who doesn't properly vet any candidate is likely to get their expectations crushed. I'm talking more about the title and language that frames the career. There's a big difference between "I'm a programmer with 30+ years experience. My last project was a rewrite of my employers checkout API." vs "I'm a consultant specializing in Ruby on Rails. For my last client, I rewrote the entire checkout process that supports $400 dollars in transactions. I decreased the time it took to process the initial check out by two seconds. With that increase in checkout speed, I provided an additional 10% lift in revenues." Both could be describing the same process, but with the latter much more in line with the prospective client's goals.
- nocman 11y ago
  I think we are mostly on the same page. My point is that the title should not frame the expectations at all, because so many people plaster "Software Engineer" or "Software Architect" on their resumes that the terms have become mostly meaningless (assuming that they ever had any real meaning in the first place), and in many cases are an indication that the person thinks more highly of themselves than they should. I also think that describing the term "programmer" as a "commodity title" gives it an unnecessarily negative connotation. Despite what marketing people think, it is a perfectly valid description of what many of us do, and does not at all necessitate thinking of a person's skills as "run-of-the-mill".
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by nocman 11y ago

aantix 11y ago

We're actually on the same page. Proof of performance is a definite must while interviewing. The title does the initial framing of expectations, that's it. There's always going to be idiot consultants. And anyone who doesn't properly vet any candidate is likely to get their expectations crushed. I'm talking more about the title and language that frames the career. There's a big difference between "I'm a programmer with 30+ years experience. My last project was a rewrite of my employers checkout API." vs "I'm a consultant specializing in Ruby on Rails. For my last client, I rewrote the entire checkout process that supports $400 dollars in transactions. I decreased the time it took to process the initial check out by two seconds. With that increase in checkout speed, I provided an additional 10% lift in revenues." Both could be describing the same process, but with the latter much more in line with the prospective client's goals.

nocman 11y ago
I think we are mostly on the same page. My point is that the title should not frame the expectations at all, because so many people plaster "Software Engineer" or "Software Architect" on their resumes that the terms have become mostly meaningless (assuming that they ever had any real meaning in the first place), and in many cases are an indication that the person thinks more highly of themselves than they should. I also think that describing the term "programmer" as a "commodity title" gives it an unnecessarily negative connotation. Despite what marketing people think, it is a perfectly valid description of what many of us do, and does not at all necessitate thinking of a person's skills as "run-of-the-mill".

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]