3 ms·

> Why is it ridiculous to expect your employer to give you the training you need to be successful? This is standard practice in many other professions, some of

> Why is it ridiculous to expect your employer to give you the training you need to be successful? This is standard practice in many other professions, some of which even have ladders of apprenticeship. If you expect that, I don't think it's ridiculous, but I have not observed any correlation between programmers who have that expectation and programmers who are in the top echelon in terms of skills and productivity. > If for example the language they needed you to use changed, would you then learn it on their time? I'll be happy to answer that question, but I need clarification. Do you mean, if my employer hired me to program in language A, and now they've decided that future development will be done in language B? Or do you mean that a new version of my current language has been released, and I need to learn and apply the new features?

jakelazaroff 9y ago
> I have not observed any correlation between programmers who have that expectation and programmers who are in the top echelon in terms of skills and productivity. I don't think this is a debate about what makes a better programmer (although other commenters have argued that many skills gained with side projects are not the same skills needed to succeed in a company) but rather whether it's fair to penalize people who — for whatever reason — literally cannot devote their out-of-work hours to what's essentially unpaid overtime training themselves. > Do you mean, if my employer hired me to program in language A, and now they've decided that future development will be done in language B? Or do you mean that a new version of my current language has been released, and I need to learn and apply the new features? I didn't have a specific scenario in mind — IMO that's not a meaningful distinction and a company should not expect you to learn it on your own time either way. What do you think separates one case from the other?
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > I don't think this is a debate about what makes a better programmer (although other commenters have argued that many skills gained with side projects are not the same skills needed to succeed in a company) but rather whether it's fair to penalize people who — for whatever reason — literally cannot devote their out-of-work hours to what's essentially unpaid overtime training themselves. I think it's perfectly fair, and I disagree that it's "penalizing" them. If I choose to buy a product that gives me more of what I want, I'm not "penalizing" the manufacturers of the competing products I didn't choose. To flip it around, If I do choose to spend my free time acquiring skills and knowledge that make me more valuable to my employer, why should I not be paid more than those who, for whatever reason, provide less value to my employer than I do? > I didn't have a specific scenario in mind — IMO that's not a meaningful distinction and a company should not expect you to learn it on your own time either way. What do you think separates one case from the other? If an employer hires me as, for example, a Java developer, because that's what I represented myself to be, and then she decides that all future development will be in Perl, then she made that business decision knowing that her current team was (presumably) not Perl experts, and she can expect that's going to impact their productivity. I would be less inclined to let her business decision impose a huge burden on my own time, learning a language that is no longer very marketable. I might tell her to be patient while I develop Perl expertise on the job, or, more likely, I would find another job. Jake, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this, because I don't care whether or not anyone agrees with me or changing anyone's mind. In fact, I'm really glad that a large portion of the developer population has the attitude you do, because it makes it easier for me to stay at or near the top of the heap. If 98% took my approach, then it would be much more work for to be among the highest paid ones who have never had any trouble getting or keeping a job in the software development field.
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    > If I choose to buy a product that gives me more of what I want, I'm not "penalizing" the manufacturers of the competing products I didn't choose. > In fact, I'm really glad that a large portion of the developer population has the attitude you do, because it makes it easier for me to stay at or near the top of the heap. I, too, would be really glad that a large portion of the developer population considers others in their community people rather than "competing products".
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      > I, too, would be really glad that a large portion of the developer population considers others in their community people rather than "competing products". You're obviously not familiar with what an analogy is. You should look into it.
  - vilmosi 9y ago
    >>> If 98% took my approach, then it would be much more work for to be among the highest paid ones who have never had any trouble getting or keeping a job in the software development field. The problem is, in my opinion, is that articles like this and anecdotal evidence like yours show that developers do in fact do what you do, you are from from the top 2%. People are mostly self taught.

jakelazaroff 9y ago

> I have not observed any correlation between programmers who have that expectation and programmers who are in the top echelon in terms of skills and productivity. I don't think this is a debate about what makes a better programmer (although other commenters have argued that many skills gained with side projects are not the same skills needed to succeed in a company) but rather whether it's fair to penalize people who — for whatever reason — literally cannot devote their out-of-work hours to what's essentially unpaid overtime training themselves. > Do you mean, if my employer hired me to program in language A, and now they've decided that future development will be done in language B? Or do you mean that a new version of my current language has been released, and I need to learn and apply the new features? I didn't have a specific scenario in mind — IMO that's not a meaningful distinction and a company should not expect you to learn it on your own time either way. What do you think separates one case from the other?

rhapsodic 9y ago
> I don't think this is a debate about what makes a better programmer (although other commenters have argued that many skills gained with side projects are not the same skills needed to succeed in a company) but rather whether it's fair to penalize people who — for whatever reason — literally cannot devote their out-of-work hours to what's essentially unpaid overtime training themselves. I think it's perfectly fair, and I disagree that it's "penalizing" them. If I choose to buy a product that gives me more of what I want, I'm not "penalizing" the manufacturers of the competing products I didn't choose. To flip it around, If I do choose to spend my free time acquiring skills and knowledge that make me more valuable to my employer, why should I not be paid more than those who, for whatever reason, provide less value to my employer than I do? > I didn't have a specific scenario in mind — IMO that's not a meaningful distinction and a company should not expect you to learn it on your own time either way. What do you think separates one case from the other? If an employer hires me as, for example, a Java developer, because that's what I represented myself to be, and then she decides that all future development will be in Perl, then she made that business decision knowing that her current team was (presumably) not Perl experts, and she can expect that's going to impact their productivity. I would be less inclined to let her business decision impose a huge burden on my own time, learning a language that is no longer very marketable. I might tell her to be patient while I develop Perl expertise on the job, or, more likely, I would find another job. Jake, I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you on this, because I don't care whether or not anyone agrees with me or changing anyone's mind. In fact, I'm really glad that a large portion of the developer population has the attitude you do, because it makes it easier for me to stay at or near the top of the heap. If 98% took my approach, then it would be much more work for to be among the highest paid ones who have never had any trouble getting or keeping a job in the software development field.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  > If I choose to buy a product that gives me more of what I want, I'm not "penalizing" the manufacturers of the competing products I didn't choose. > In fact, I'm really glad that a large portion of the developer population has the attitude you do, because it makes it easier for me to stay at or near the top of the heap. I, too, would be really glad that a large portion of the developer population considers others in their community people rather than "competing products".
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    > I, too, would be really glad that a large portion of the developer population considers others in their community people rather than "competing products". You're obviously not familiar with what an analogy is. You should look into it.
- vilmosi 9y ago
  >>> If 98% took my approach, then it would be much more work for to be among the highest paid ones who have never had any trouble getting or keeping a job in the software development field. The problem is, in my opinion, is that articles like this and anecdotal evidence like yours show that developers do in fact do what you do, you are from from the top 2%. People are mostly self taught.