4 ms·

As a Houston developer, that chart of motivating factors describes exactly what I'm looking for. I won't work on an ancient Java codebase that has no tests or

As a Houston developer, that chart of motivating factors describes exactly what I'm looking for. I won't work on an ancient Java codebase that has no tests or no deployment pipeline, because doing that is death. Gotta keep moving forward or find yourself sliding backwards. I would say your analysis is spot on and I could have written the same article myself. Companies should realize doing things that seem "fluffy" and not entirely necessary, like moving to a newer tech stack, might be worth it as it will make it easier to attract new talent. And if they stay behind, they might encounter the famous "dead sea effect" and wonder why things break, and every new feature takes forever -- the best technically minded people have left for greener pastures. However, I'd say that considering people who are great at interviewing are great engineers is flawed. There's a correlation, but it's probably a weak one. To get great at interviews, you have to practice interviews a lot. It's a separate skill orthogonal to software. Basically, you're selecting the most motivated to succeed -- but motivation to succeed doesn't necessarily translate into the best technical ability. It makes sense that they care most about salary, impressive surroundings and fast pace, as they're probably the most careerist SEs out there. > devoting (say) $1,000 or even $5,000 to classes or other forms of professional growth is not particularly expensive, but it can have a disproportionate effect on recruiting. I don't need classes. When I say I want professional growth, it means I want to play with new technologies and gain experience with them at work. So if you're willing to hire me to work on a new hot thing, I'll be more likely to take it. But please, please do away with the conceit that great interviewers are great employees unless you have data that suggests otherwise. Reading this, I'm under the impression you only look at candidates and don't have any metrics to understand their actual work performance.

maltalex 7y ago
> Companies should realize doing things that seem "fluffy" and not entirely necessary, like moving to a newer tech stack, might be worth it as it will make it easier to attract new talent. Why are we as professionals (myself included, I'm not immune) so obsessed with shiny new things? Updating a product's tech stack just to attract new talent and not because the product needs it is objectively strange. Imagine if roads were torn down and rebuilt just because civil engineers wanted to try out some new road laying thingy.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  I felt the same way when I closely followed indie rock, too. You have to pay close attention to all the new buzz coming out or you'll be at risk of being left behind and outed as "no longer with it." I assume the same thing goes for stuff like, say, fashion and art too. Funny how it has everything to do with style, and far less to do with engineering.
- triceratops 7y ago
  Road-laying technology doesn't develop at the pace that computer technology does. We went from room-sized mainframes to powerful pocket computers in 40 years. Working on "new things" is objectively more interesting and pays better - modulo the COBOL devs making $500/hr now.
  - hollerith 7y ago
    You are describing advances in semiconductor performance whereas the person you are responding to has in mind things like new programming languages, libraries and frameworks, many of which we cannot even confidently say are advances at all.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      New programming languages, libraries, and frameworks often tend to go in lockstep with semi-conductor and hardware advances.
      - asdfman123 7y ago
        Advancements in semiconductor research have led to wonderfully inefficient front end frameworks.
        triceratops 7y ago
        That too :-) But front-end frameworks don't constitute the entirety of new language and framework developments. For instance, having cycles and memory to spare made using fun languages such as Python and Ruby practical. Advances in hardware let (and force) us (to) write applications of far greater complexity. Writing a mobile game is way more involved than a payroll application on big iron.
logfromblammo 7y ago
I also don't need classes. I'd like learning new (to me) things to be part of my job, and not tacked on after the fact with third-party seminars and after-hours classes. I can already do that, regardless of my job, and I won't owe my employer anything for it. If I can explore and experiment while working, the work feels less like work.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Yeah, they were wrong there. It should be "Cool, you're an awesome C++ dev. Want to write Node for us?" Most recruiters don't realize how easy it is to change gears like that. I wouldn't be interested in taking outside classes, either. I can already do that for free online.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Q: Can you solve a problem by deconstructing it into smaller, easier problems and solving them? A: Yes. Q: Cool. Coolcoolcool. Now... can you do that without violating a bunch of arbitrary constraints? A: ...As long as they don't restrict Turing-completeness. Q: I didn't hear a "yes" there. A: Yes. Q: So how much experience do you have with our specific set of arbitrary constraints? A: Uhhh... I never worked here before, so none? Q: Oof. Well, thanks for coming in. We'll be in touch. Or not. Sometimes we just ghost people. Not to be dicks or anything, it's just that they're no longer worth acknowledging their existence to us.
52-6F-62 7y ago
> Companies should realize doing things that seem "fluffy" and not entirely necessary, like moving to a newer tech stack, might be worth it as it will make it easier to attract new talent. And if they stay behind, they might encounter the famous "dead sea effect" and wonder why things break, and every new feature takes forever -- the best technically minded people have left for greener pastures. I think when they get to this stage they outsource to small dev mills. I don't know about Houston, but here in Toronto there are plenty of those who do "enterprise" work that consists of writing something once and walking away leaving any leftover internal developers to manage it. I've worked in ecosystems where that kind of stuff will stick around for 10+ years, broken and bandaged with no documentation. Sometimes even more. Many companies that operate that way don't want to pay for a development team. They just want it working. Hell, sometimes they can't justify the headcount of having a few developers on board but can easily get away with dropping $250 - 500k a year to outsource the work.
pyrale 7y ago
I have worked at a place that would refund up to $5k if I provided reasonable bills for trainings, conferences, coaching, theatre courses, and that was part of the perks.
benburleson 7y ago
Your point about interviewing is refreshing to hear. I'm a terrible interviewee, but I know I'm a kickass developer. It's rough, but honestly I don't know how companies should find great engineers that aren't good interviewees -- just networking?
sethammons 7y ago
> I don't need classes omg, yes. "we offer online courses" or "go to such-n-such conference budget" are _not_ professional growth to me. I want, like you, to play with new technologies and get experience working with them.

maltalex 7y ago

> Companies should realize doing things that seem "fluffy" and not entirely necessary, like moving to a newer tech stack, might be worth it as it will make it easier to attract new talent. Why are we as professionals (myself included, I'm not immune) so obsessed with shiny new things? Updating a product's tech stack just to attract new talent and not because the product needs it is objectively strange. Imagine if roads were torn down and rebuilt just because civil engineers wanted to try out some new road laying thingy.

asdfman123 7y ago
I felt the same way when I closely followed indie rock, too. You have to pay close attention to all the new buzz coming out or you'll be at risk of being left behind and outed as "no longer with it." I assume the same thing goes for stuff like, say, fashion and art too. Funny how it has everything to do with style, and far less to do with engineering.
triceratops 7y ago
Road-laying technology doesn't develop at the pace that computer technology does. We went from room-sized mainframes to powerful pocket computers in 40 years. Working on "new things" is objectively more interesting and pays better - modulo the COBOL devs making $500/hr now.
- hollerith 7y ago
  You are describing advances in semiconductor performance whereas the person you are responding to has in mind things like new programming languages, libraries and frameworks, many of which we cannot even confidently say are advances at all.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    New programming languages, libraries, and frameworks often tend to go in lockstep with semi-conductor and hardware advances.
    - asdfman123 7y ago
      Advancements in semiconductor research have led to wonderfully inefficient front end frameworks.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        That too :-) But front-end frameworks don't constitute the entirety of new language and framework developments. For instance, having cycles and memory to spare made using fun languages such as Python and Ruby practical. Advances in hardware let (and force) us (to) write applications of far greater complexity. Writing a mobile game is way more involved than a payroll application on big iron.

logfromblammo 7y ago

I also don't need classes. I'd like learning new (to me) things to be part of my job, and not tacked on after the fact with third-party seminars and after-hours classes. I can already do that, regardless of my job, and I won't owe my employer anything for it. If I can explore and experiment while working, the work feels less like work.

asdfman123 7y ago
Yeah, they were wrong there. It should be "Cool, you're an awesome C++ dev. Want to write Node for us?" Most recruiters don't realize how easy it is to change gears like that. I wouldn't be interested in taking outside classes, either. I can already do that for free online.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Q: Can you solve a problem by deconstructing it into smaller, easier problems and solving them? A: Yes. Q: Cool. Coolcoolcool. Now... can you do that without violating a bunch of arbitrary constraints? A: ...As long as they don't restrict Turing-completeness. Q: I didn't hear a "yes" there. A: Yes. Q: So how much experience do you have with our specific set of arbitrary constraints? A: Uhhh... I never worked here before, so none? Q: Oof. Well, thanks for coming in. We'll be in touch. Or not. Sometimes we just ghost people. Not to be dicks or anything, it's just that they're no longer worth acknowledging their existence to us.

52-6F-62 7y ago

> Companies should realize doing things that seem "fluffy" and not entirely necessary, like moving to a newer tech stack, might be worth it as it will make it easier to attract new talent. And if they stay behind, they might encounter the famous "dead sea effect" and wonder why things break, and every new feature takes forever -- the best technically minded people have left for greener pastures. I think when they get to this stage they outsource to small dev mills. I don't know about Houston, but here in Toronto there are plenty of those who do "enterprise" work that consists of writing something once and walking away leaving any leftover internal developers to manage it. I've worked in ecosystems where that kind of stuff will stick around for 10+ years, broken and bandaged with no documentation. Sometimes even more. Many companies that operate that way don't want to pay for a development team. They just want it working. Hell, sometimes they can't justify the headcount of having a few developers on board but can easily get away with dropping $250 - 500k a year to outsource the work.

pyrale 7y ago

I have worked at a place that would refund up to $5k if I provided reasonable bills for trainings, conferences, coaching, theatre courses, and that was part of the perks.

benburleson 7y ago

Your point about interviewing is refreshing to hear. I'm a terrible interviewee, but I know I'm a kickass developer. It's rough, but honestly I don't know how companies should find great engineers that aren't good interviewees -- just networking?

sethammons 7y ago

> I don't need classes omg, yes. "we offer online courses" or "go to such-n-such conference budget" are _not_ professional growth to me. I want, like you, to play with new technologies and get experience working with them.