4 ms·

Half of a coder's value is understanding "unspoken" requirements. In other words, "having experience in the industry". Or "domain-specific knowledge" Back in

by daxfohl 10y ago

Half of a coder's value is understanding "unspoken" requirements. In other words, "having experience in the industry". Or "domain-specific knowledge" Back in the day, there were different industries to have experience in. Jet engines, medical devices, etc. Beyond that, nothing had/needed/understood software. For better or worse, it was a pinnacle. These days "the industry" is "teens using snapchat". The further you are removed from that, the less valuable you are as a coder. There are still of course jet engines and medical devices to be built, but (as a statement to our society?) those products and thus those skills are not as valuable as advertising. Even more sadly, this trend is just the start. The current 40's-ish coders have their own industry experience to fall back on. The next generation of coders that will have nothing but 15secOfFame-centric jobs will have nothing to fall back on as younger 15msOfFame-centric things come in. At some point we'll have to recognize coding as an NFL-style career. Get what you can while you can; you'll be a car salesman soon enough. Granted NFL players have 100x the pay plus public visibility that can help them after they retire. None of this matters because the Earth will be sand in 20 years anyway. (Sorry I'm still digesting http://xkcd.com/1732/ http://xkcd.com/1732/)

ionwake 10y ago
dat surprise nihilism at the end
highd 10y ago
I wouldn't say "teens using snapchat" is "the industry", I would say it is "a industry". If you look at the S&P 500, a tiny fraction of the companies there are "social media", and even software-only companies are a small fraction. The social web startup is sexy still because of the romanticism of the Zuckerberg-dorm-room-hacking-to-$B story, but it's a relatively insignificant component of the economy. Jet engines and medical devices haven't become less popular.
- Animats 10y ago
  That's almost over. Look at YC's latest crop of companies. Only about two are ad-supported. Right now, Facebook and Google are more than half the online ad industry, and that fraction is increasing. There's a network effect - ad space buyers only need to deal with Facebook and Google; beyond that it's not worth the trouble. Twitter doesn't have enough market share and is still losing money. Instagram exited by selling to Facebook. Snapchat and Pinterest are still standalone, privately held, and may not be profitable. We're back to having to make stuff that customers will pay for. That's a good thing.
georgespencer 10y ago
I kept looking for the /s tag but couldn't see it. > Half of a coder's value is understanding "unspoken" requirements. Certainly a great deal of what you pay for in a more senior engineer is that ability to see around corners. I disagree entirely with your assessment that this ability is anything narrower than domain-specific (i.e. it extends only so far as 'an experienced software engineer' not so far as 'an experienced photo sharing app engineer'). > The current 40's-ish coders have their own industry experience to fall back on. The next generation of coders that will have nothing but 15secOfFame-centric jobs will have nothing to fall back on as younger 15msOfFame-centric things come in. To assert this with any credibility (the assertion: previous generations software engineers can fall back into 'steady' jobs because they have expertise in staple products; new generation won't be able to because they don't) you have to have some sort of evidence. Plenty of junior and midweight engineers hop from bank => startup and vice versa. Why would the same not be true of senior engineers? If you specialise in cryptography does it matter whether you're applying it for British Airways or Snapchat? > At some point we'll have to recognize coding as an NFL-style career. Why? What evidence supports this conclusion? > Get what you can while you can; you'll be a car salesman soon enough. Granted NFL players have 100x the pay plus public visibility that can help them after they retire. If you fail to keep your skills current then yes, you will have a short career. I know many software engineers who are three decades into their career. They're hard-working and enthusiastic. They keep their skills up to date. An adjacent point: having read The 100 Year Life, it's clear to me that in 20 years our job market will be different to the one we see today. Salary will likely be heavily decoupled from age and closely linked to merit. As older people get healthier relative to previous generations, they will be able to work productively for longer. It's therefore both more necessary for them to keep current and invest in themselves in order to maintain income parity, but also more possible for them to do so (because instead of having hip operations at 60, they can attend J2EE2: No This Time We Mean It, It's Going To Be Huge summer camp).
- daxfohl 10y ago
  > Why? What evidence supports this conclusion? Because in the deluge of this style of post on HN lately, the most common counter has been "well we elders know the game so much better". Sounds exactly like sports. Yes you can pick up new skills and what-not, but "the game" has changed and the kids at a very fundamental level "get it" and you don't. > having read The 100 Year Life Okay.... > it's clear to me that in 20 years our job market will be different to the one we see today. Salary will likely be heavily decoupled from age and closely linked to merit. Exactly. But merit at what? Old-school coders are the best there are. But they're getting kicked out because they're the best at stuff that nobody cares about. You know, algorithms and correct coding and what-not. Ultimately, salary is going to be linked to how much you make the company. It's already happening / happened. There's no point to your book. If you "get" the latest social media craze and can figure out the best way to incorporate it, you're way more valuable than someone who knows 100 programming languages, wrote ten, and can solve the entirety of Project Euler in an hour. Okay maybe the Euler guy might be worth something. (the /s you're wanting). But, given most of us, even if we're above average, aren't that guy, what does that leave? It leaves an NFL-style career. At 1/100 the salary. Anyway I have two kids. I love programming. I'm good at it. I'm 40. I will steer them away from that as a profession. It's an NFL-style career. Addendum: > Ultimately, salary is going to be linked to how much you make the company. It's already happening / happened. And don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. I guess. Anyway, fits in with the ideal of social Darwinism, and capitalism in general. Which, I guess is as good a thing as any, and likely unavoidable regardless. Nonetheless, it has to be taken for what it is, which is a pretty awesome career thru your early 30's followed by a never-ending gray cloud. Which is great if that's what you want. However if you're expecting a long-term career like I'd assume most are, you really need to plan out your career path in more detail. Most people going into CS don't recognize that, and it really needs to be made more plain.

by daxfohl 10y ago

ionwake 10y ago

dat surprise nihilism at the end

highd 10y ago

I wouldn't say "teens using snapchat" is "the industry", I would say it is "a industry". If you look at the S&P 500, a tiny fraction of the companies there are "social media", and even software-only companies are a small fraction. The social web startup is sexy still because of the romanticism of the Zuckerberg-dorm-room-hacking-to-$B story, but it's a relatively insignificant component of the economy. Jet engines and medical devices haven't become less popular.

Animats 10y ago
That's almost over. Look at YC's latest crop of companies. Only about two are ad-supported. Right now, Facebook and Google are more than half the online ad industry, and that fraction is increasing. There's a network effect - ad space buyers only need to deal with Facebook and Google; beyond that it's not worth the trouble. Twitter doesn't have enough market share and is still losing money. Instagram exited by selling to Facebook. Snapchat and Pinterest are still standalone, privately held, and may not be profitable. We're back to having to make stuff that customers will pay for. That's a good thing.

georgespencer 10y ago

I kept looking for the /s tag but couldn't see it. > Half of a coder's value is understanding "unspoken" requirements. Certainly a great deal of what you pay for in a more senior engineer is that ability to see around corners. I disagree entirely with your assessment that this ability is anything narrower than domain-specific (i.e. it extends only so far as 'an experienced software engineer' not so far as 'an experienced photo sharing app engineer'). > The current 40's-ish coders have their own industry experience to fall back on. The next generation of coders that will have nothing but 15secOfFame-centric jobs will have nothing to fall back on as younger 15msOfFame-centric things come in. To assert this with any credibility (the assertion: previous generations software engineers can fall back into 'steady' jobs because they have expertise in staple products; new generation won't be able to because they don't) you have to have some sort of evidence. Plenty of junior and midweight engineers hop from bank => startup and vice versa. Why would the same not be true of senior engineers? If you specialise in cryptography does it matter whether you're applying it for British Airways or Snapchat? > At some point we'll have to recognize coding as an NFL-style career. Why? What evidence supports this conclusion? > Get what you can while you can; you'll be a car salesman soon enough. Granted NFL players have 100x the pay plus public visibility that can help them after they retire. If you fail to keep your skills current then yes, you will have a short career. I know many software engineers who are three decades into their career. They're hard-working and enthusiastic. They keep their skills up to date. An adjacent point: having read The 100 Year Life, it's clear to me that in 20 years our job market will be different to the one we see today. Salary will likely be heavily decoupled from age and closely linked to merit. As older people get healthier relative to previous generations, they will be able to work productively for longer. It's therefore both more necessary for them to keep current and invest in themselves in order to maintain income parity, but also more possible for them to do so (because instead of having hip operations at 60, they can attend J2EE2: No This Time We Mean It, It's Going To Be Huge summer camp).

daxfohl 10y ago
> Why? What evidence supports this conclusion? Because in the deluge of this style of post on HN lately, the most common counter has been "well we elders know the game so much better". Sounds exactly like sports. Yes you can pick up new skills and what-not, but "the game" has changed and the kids at a very fundamental level "get it" and you don't. > having read The 100 Year Life Okay.... > it's clear to me that in 20 years our job market will be different to the one we see today. Salary will likely be heavily decoupled from age and closely linked to merit. Exactly. But merit at what? Old-school coders are the best there are. But they're getting kicked out because they're the best at stuff that nobody cares about. You know, algorithms and correct coding and what-not. Ultimately, salary is going to be linked to how much you make the company. It's already happening / happened. There's no point to your book. If you "get" the latest social media craze and can figure out the best way to incorporate it, you're way more valuable than someone who knows 100 programming languages, wrote ten, and can solve the entirety of Project Euler in an hour. Okay maybe the Euler guy might be worth something. (the /s you're wanting). But, given most of us, even if we're above average, aren't that guy, what does that leave? It leaves an NFL-style career. At 1/100 the salary. Anyway I have two kids. I love programming. I'm good at it. I'm 40. I will steer them away from that as a profession. It's an NFL-style career. Addendum: > Ultimately, salary is going to be linked to how much you make the company. It's already happening / happened. And don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. I guess. Anyway, fits in with the ideal of social Darwinism, and capitalism in general. Which, I guess is as good a thing as any, and likely unavoidable regardless. Nonetheless, it has to be taken for what it is, which is a pretty awesome career thru your early 30's followed by a never-ending gray cloud. Which is great if that's what you want. However if you're expecting a long-term career like I'd assume most are, you really need to plan out your career path in more detail. Most people going into CS don't recognize that, and it really needs to be made more plain.