4 ms·
Allow me to offer myself as a counterpoint ;) I've worked for well over 3 years (8ish now?) and there's a lot I've yet to learn about when to take one design ap
by allengeorge 10y ago
Allow me to offer myself as a counterpoint ;) I've worked for well over 3 years (8ish now?) and there's a lot I've yet to learn about when to take one design approach vs. another, how to identify risks early, etc. etc.
And, for what it's worth, I agree: one should not be considered "senior" after 3, or 5 years. Actually, tenure matters less than perspective and problem-solving approach.
- alexbanks 10y agoSome (me) would argue that tenure should not be considered when deciding a developer's skill.
- collyw 10y agoFor certain types of problem that may work well, but for me, learning from my mistakes has been where I learned a lot.
- alexbanks 10y agoTotally, but learning from your mistakes is not necessarily tied to years at a desk. edit Also, we've all met that dev that just "gets it" and can be extremely productive regardless of time at a job/company/project. That dev also "got it" when they were pretty new to the industry.
- StevePerkins 10y agoI think that the number of different companies you've worked for (and the diversity in how they operate) is more important than the raw number of years you've worked. Also, how your role has grown or varied from job to job. Rookies worry too much about "job hopping". I can't count the number of people I've interviewed who had "10 years experience"... but really they just had "the same year 10 times".
- alexbanks 10y agoMore jobs = more diversity = more experience, no? Both models are flawed I think, as 10 jobs in 10 years brings a ton of understanding of the overarching principles of working as a dev, but has a total lack of long-term team success. 2 jobs in 10 years brings an understanding of that long-term team success but a relatively small window into dev jobs as a whole.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- serge2k 10y ago> I agree: one should not be considered "senior" after 3, or 5 years. Actually, tenure matters less than perspective and problem-solving approach. These sentences are in direct conflict with one another.
- allengeorge 10y agoReally? I said that one should not be considered senior based on a time period. And then proceeded to offer two (non-time-related) characteristics I considered to be hallmarks of seniority.
- phamilton 10y agoThe original critique was that 3-5 years was too little time (meaning time matters). It sounded like you were agreeing that after 3-5 years someone shouldn't be senior (and implying that it should be longer).
- allengeorge 10y agoMy bad. The both of you are absolutely right. To clarify: 1. I think that 3 - 5 is too short - there's so much to learn, and a lot of experience to be gained from seeing how your designs age. 2. That said, time doesn't matter as much as engagement, problems tackled, and attitude. But - it's still conditional on 1. above. You may *think* you "get" it, but it may turn out that your great designs don't age well, etc. So, it's a combination of both. Not purely tenure, not purely attitude.
- tedmiston 10y ago> Actually, tenure matters less than perspective and problem-solving approach. On that token, Pragmatic Thinking and Learning is an awesome book for improving your problem solving approach, better understanding cognitive biases, and learning more effectively. https://www.amazon.com/Pragmatic-Thinking-Learning-Refactor-Programmers/dp/1934356050 https://www.amazon.com/Pragmatic-Thinking-Learning-Refactor-...