3 ms·
No it seems as though it just creates a bunch of complaining developers. This plays into another blog post that went viral on hacker news about why the intervie
by ozfive 7y ago
No it seems as though it just creates a bunch of complaining developers. This plays into another blog post that went viral on hacker news about why the interviewing practice is broken. Engineers who can't even engineer a proper interviewing process that doesn't nullify 99% of candidates and companies complain why they can't find good candidates. At least in the aerospace community the older Generation was willing to take on people who didn't know best practices and apprentice them. This is why hiring in software is broken. A bunch of people that don't actually want to be stewards of the craft.
- speedplane 7y ago> This is why hiring in software is broken. A bunch of people that don't actually want to be stewards of the craft. I've hired a few developers and have found you can turn a inexperienced but relatively bright developer into a competent one with sufficient time and training. In my experience, this usually takes at least one year, and roughly one or two months of a manager/mentor's time. An experienced super-star can become productive within a month, requires just a few days of the manager's time, and can easily be >3X more productive than the merely competent engineer. The problem is that it's almost impossible to identify most super-stars, and the obvious super-stars command super-star salaries (although generally less than the 3X productivity gain). Creating a company that relies on training competent programmers may be less efficient than one that seeks out super-stars, but it's still a proven and workable model, with added benefits of higher employee loyalty and work-force stability.