4 ms·
> Titles are B.S. but people listen to developers with "architect" as part of their title. I would be careful with this advice. It might get you a cushy job an
by lackbeard 9y ago
> Titles are B.S. but people listen to developers with "architect" as part of their title.
I would be careful with this advice. It might get you a cushy job and a higher salary at bad companies, but I think it's bad for your career in the long run.
In my experience most "architects" don't do any real work while cooking up a bunch of "best-practices" that sound good in a vacuum but either fail completely or create a big unnecessary mess when it comes to actual implementation.
In my experience, real practitioners who are actually worth paying attention to usually have the title "Lead", "Manager", "Director", or "Principal".
- scarface74 9y agoI was recently told by manager - who insisted on his title as "director" not managsr - that the title "manager" is actually seen as more tactical and not strategic and has less respect. I would rather be called a "lead" than "principal". A "principal" is seen as an individual contributor, an "architect" is also usually an individual contributor but could also be someone who interacts with various departments to get stuff done.
- scarface74 9y agoI agree. My title has "architect" in it at my insistence, but I'm also the only dedicated developer in the department. So I have to "architect" my own solutions.
- senderista 9y agoAll the architects I met at MSFT were (formerly) star devs, and most still wrote some code (and did code reviews).