3 ms·

I think one of the problems is that software developers are focused on domains that you can do with just software (and just expertise in software). Domains wher

by _bxg1 7y ago

I think one of the problems is that software developers are focused on domains that you can do with just software (and just expertise in software). Domains where something can be prototyped in a weekend, with no research or regulatory hurdles or real-world knowledge. Something you can just put on the internet and let it go. This leads to a huge number of business ideas that are either a) for developers, or b) really superficial like "X but with software". I think there's a huge market opportunity for programmers who are willing to dive deep into other fields, and coordinate closely with people who don't work or think the same way that they do. Domains where the point isn't the software. Governance, energy, industrial design, scientific research, etc. These are areas that seem ripe for software-based improvements, but have gotten orders of magnitude less attention than, say, cloud hosting. I don't think the blame lies with a single party: software developers are biased by a desire for agility and being in control, but members of the above domains are probably also not taking the initiative they should be to solicit these kinds of solutions. What if there were a conference that specifically paired software developers with these other hard-to-penetrate industries, as a cross-pollenation exercise? I wonder what would come of it.

non-entity 7y ago
I've seen positions for "scientific programmers" that seem pretty interesting and I imagine a lot of those fields could be helped with software, but always want a PhD in the domain field.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  That sounds like more of a "you're a scientist but you write bespoke code as an effort-multiplier". What I'm talking about is, you go and talk with people in those fields and figure out what they waste their time doing, and build generalized tools that can amplify effort and improve process at a much grander scale.
  - spaced-out 7y ago
    At one time I thought that would be my dream job, which is why I got a minor in Physics. I ultimately went and got a job at a normal tech company because I realized: 1. Working in that field, funding is often tied to government grants, so I would have been making a lot less money, and likely working harder. 2. Little to no opportunities for advancement, or even having your ideas heard, because you'll be the only one in the room without a PhD, in an industry where those 3 letters are literally everything that matters. 3. Even people with PhD are treated like crap in the hard sciences. I have a friend that has a PhD in biology, makes less than 1/3rd of what I do, and works longer hours. If we as a society want the best minds to go into those fields, we need to pay those people more.
    - _bxg1 7y ago
      What if people started software companies tailored to those segments and sold to them as customers, instead of trying to get hired there?
      - spaced-out 7y ago
        I haven't looked into that, but in my anecdotal experience the problems are: 1. There is simply less money in that line of work because it's tied to government grants. 2. The Physics field (which I have direct experience in) is dominated by old people with PhDs. They're very smart people, but also tend to be stubborn, and (again generalizing) are not too keen on listening to the opinions of people who don't have a PhD.
      - 1auralynn 7y ago
        It's not super profitable due to tight budgets.
  - non-entity 7y ago
    You're probably correct, but imo those positions should be listed as a scientist role with programmer functions, as opposed to a programmer role then
Nasrudith 7y ago
There is the flip-side of that. The other domains don't get software and tend to resist the incursion of software generally in spite of obvious benefits. Notice that the model has historically been disruption as opposed to 'integration' - despite the existing interests being in a prime position to leverage. Taxi companies didn't even contract out a half-assed cellphone app when there were obvious benefits to GPS and computerized dispatching. It has been a 'science advances one funeral at a time' thing in practice unfortunately. Although there are a few who do integrate and reap the benefits. I recall an article about one unusual young city council making good use of social media live streaming for meetings and text chat to make their governance more accessible, transparent, and responsive. Given the issues involved with either trying to build up an expertise to reproduce the field of knowledge or trying to get them to cooperate it is no wonder from a business standpoint why software developers are biased to 'just software'. It has the least number of additional complications in what is already a risky business.

by _bxg1 7y ago

non-entity 7y ago

I've seen positions for "scientific programmers" that seem pretty interesting and I imagine a lot of those fields could be helped with software, but always want a PhD in the domain field.

_bxg1 7y ago
That sounds like more of a "you're a scientist but you write bespoke code as an effort-multiplier". What I'm talking about is, you go and talk with people in those fields and figure out what they waste their time doing, and build generalized tools that can amplify effort and improve process at a much grander scale.
- spaced-out 7y ago
  At one time I thought that would be my dream job, which is why I got a minor in Physics. I ultimately went and got a job at a normal tech company because I realized: 1. Working in that field, funding is often tied to government grants, so I would have been making a lot less money, and likely working harder. 2. Little to no opportunities for advancement, or even having your ideas heard, because you'll be the only one in the room without a PhD, in an industry where those 3 letters are literally everything that matters. 3. Even people with PhD are treated like crap in the hard sciences. I have a friend that has a PhD in biology, makes less than 1/3rd of what I do, and works longer hours. If we as a society want the best minds to go into those fields, we need to pay those people more.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    What if people started software companies tailored to those segments and sold to them as customers, instead of trying to get hired there?
    - spaced-out 7y ago
      I haven't looked into that, but in my anecdotal experience the problems are: 1. There is simply less money in that line of work because it's tied to government grants. 2. The Physics field (which I have direct experience in) is dominated by old people with PhDs. They're very smart people, but also tend to be stubborn, and (again generalizing) are not too keen on listening to the opinions of people who don't have a PhD.
    - 1auralynn 7y ago
      It's not super profitable due to tight budgets.
- non-entity 7y ago
  You're probably correct, but imo those positions should be listed as a scientist role with programmer functions, as opposed to a programmer role then

Nasrudith 7y ago

There is the flip-side of that. The other domains don't get software and tend to resist the incursion of software generally in spite of obvious benefits. Notice that the model has historically been disruption as opposed to 'integration' - despite the existing interests being in a prime position to leverage. Taxi companies didn't even contract out a half-assed cellphone app when there were obvious benefits to GPS and computerized dispatching. It has been a 'science advances one funeral at a time' thing in practice unfortunately. Although there are a few who do integrate and reap the benefits. I recall an article about one unusual young city council making good use of social media live streaming for meetings and text chat to make their governance more accessible, transparent, and responsive. Given the issues involved with either trying to build up an expertise to reproduce the field of knowledge or trying to get them to cooperate it is no wonder from a business standpoint why software developers are biased to 'just software'. It has the least number of additional complications in what is already a risky business.