5 ms·

I like computers. I did when I was 17 & I still do now. But, as a young developer now, I'm quiet scared of the industry as a whole. The direction it's heading t

I like computers. I did when I was 17 & I still do now. But, as a young developer now, I'm quiet scared of the industry as a whole. The direction it's heading towards. I don't know the right answers but there is quiet a lot of things on part of the hiring process & what's considered as value in the software industry, that feels wrong. Let me get specific. 1. Competitive programming is great. But why hold it in direct proportion to ability to build products? 2. What happens 10 years from now. I know the 'keep up with the latest' drill. I'll definitely be doing it & I quiet like it. But why is the trend unreasonably favouring fresh graduates and quiet unjust to the seniors. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I don't despise the freshers. I'm quiet a fresher myself, but it still concerns me. 3. Why are things changing so fast in the first place? Don't get me wrong. I'm looking at the JS ecosystem. I like diversification. It's good. In our industry diversification helps better than anything else. They eventually converge back. JS is yet to reach that state, but still it concerns me the way the Javascript ecosystem is diversifying. We've got an awful lot of things to set right in the industry. Hiring process is definitely something that needs attention. I personally find short-term paid contracting as a part of the hiring process, much much healthy than whiteboard coding & website ranks.

malisper 10y ago
> Competitive programming is great. But why hold it in direct proportion to ability to build products? Because it's quick to test how good someone is at competitive programming, it's easy to grade everyone consistenty, and it (somewhat) correlates with actual programming ability. Compare it to other interview techniques. A programming project/trial period is time consuming. And it's hard to grade everyone consistently when going off of their resume/github.
- lewisjoe 10y ago
  > Because it's quick to test how good someone is at competitive programming, it's easy to grade everyone consistently, and it (somewhat) correlates with actual programming ability. I'd agree. Competitive programming does correlate with actual coding ability. The category of people who find it satisfying, earning ranks from a website - that's what bothers me. Young talents who've got all the time needed to earn score, they do it. What about the rest of our veterans? How fair is it to keep a website rank as a baseline for job in the real world. I don't know many who find competitive programming fascinating, after 5 years solving real problems for real people. I may be wrong here. Please disapprove/acknowledge me in the comments. It's a deep problem. Not a lot of organizations can afford the short-term contracting method. I agree. But I consider the cumulative star counts of their github projects, way better a metric than a rank from a website. There's no one right solution to this. But competitive programming score is IMO a very wrong direction to go. We are very much capable of coming up with better solutions. That's what we are good at :)
  - poikniok 10y ago
    http://codeforces.com/profile/Petr http://codeforces.com/profile/Petr
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Does your correlation go both ways, though? If you think you have evidence that competitive programming is correlated with higher ability, do you have evidence that higher ability is correlated with competitive programming? Or do you not think about that part, or conclude that anyone qualified you pass on is a fair cost to pay?
hkon 10y ago
I share your thoughts and I think it's many reasons things are the way they are. Main reason being money. Young programmers are cheaper and easier to boss around. Quantifying programmer skill is an easy sell, albeit flawed, "look at the score, we should hire or ignore!". Because hiring programmers you don't know is very difficult. This score can also serve as a way of lowering pay. I think we all want to work with new and cool stuff, so this is pushed as a selling point to get you working for pizza and beer. The pay is not good but you can work with <insert latest shit> here. How your company looks is important if you want VC money. Better keep your look young and vibrant. This also serves to attract other young cheap workers.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

malisper 10y ago

> Competitive programming is great. But why hold it in direct proportion to ability to build products? Because it's quick to test how good someone is at competitive programming, it's easy to grade everyone consistenty, and it (somewhat) correlates with actual programming ability. Compare it to other interview techniques. A programming project/trial period is time consuming. And it's hard to grade everyone consistently when going off of their resume/github.

lewisjoe 10y ago
> Because it's quick to test how good someone is at competitive programming, it's easy to grade everyone consistently, and it (somewhat) correlates with actual programming ability. I'd agree. Competitive programming does correlate with actual coding ability. The category of people who find it satisfying, earning ranks from a website - that's what bothers me. Young talents who've got all the time needed to earn score, they do it. What about the rest of our veterans? How fair is it to keep a website rank as a baseline for job in the real world. I don't know many who find competitive programming fascinating, after 5 years solving real problems for real people. I may be wrong here. Please disapprove/acknowledge me in the comments. It's a deep problem. Not a lot of organizations can afford the short-term contracting method. I agree. But I consider the cumulative star counts of their github projects, way better a metric than a rank from a website. There's no one right solution to this. But competitive programming score is IMO a very wrong direction to go. We are very much capable of coming up with better solutions. That's what we are good at :)
- poikniok 10y ago
  http://codeforces.com/profile/Petr http://codeforces.com/profile/Petr
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 10y ago
Does your correlation go both ways, though? If you think you have evidence that competitive programming is correlated with higher ability, do you have evidence that higher ability is correlated with competitive programming? Or do you not think about that part, or conclude that anyone qualified you pass on is a fair cost to pay?

hkon 10y ago

I share your thoughts and I think it's many reasons things are the way they are. Main reason being money. Young programmers are cheaper and easier to boss around. Quantifying programmer skill is an easy sell, albeit flawed, "look at the score, we should hire or ignore!". Because hiring programmers you don't know is very difficult. This score can also serve as a way of lowering pay. I think we all want to work with new and cool stuff, so this is pushed as a selling point to get you working for pizza and beer. The pay is not good but you can work with <insert latest shit> here. How your company looks is important if you want VC money. Better keep your look young and vibrant. This also serves to attract other young cheap workers.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]