5 ms·

No, people were not. What changed is the demand grew enormously and in response, as in every other business of life, a lot of people who only have passing inte

No, people were not. What changed is the demand grew enormously and in response, as in every other business of life, a lot of people who only have passing interest in it got into it because it pays well. So now you have companies have to sort through huge pile of mediocre candidates. This causes the process to be very noisy, a lot of screwed incentives and a lot of false positives and negatives. Applicants are now hedging their bets and applying to multiple places means that they are unwilling to spend entire day in each one. And companies (those that do not understand how important hiring is) also have incentives to spend less effort on hiring. And developers became much more cynical. Partly because of high demand they are aware of. Partly because companies do not treat them well (like not giving raises at a rate their potential salary is appreciating as the market and their experience changes). And partly because new generations are just much more disillusioned. I had a person recently refuse to come to 2h interview. Apparently it was too much effort. Good riddance and thank you for saving my time. Good news is that good developers can still easily find a good job wherever they want. Bad news is that most people are not good developers and they don't even know about it because really good developers are so few and concentrated in relatively few places. In effect, most developers will never have a chance to work with one.

hasmolo 4y ago
i don’t think you’re wrong, i just think you may have lost sight of some external factors. in 1995, the market was naturally filled with folks interested in computers more organically. now, software writing is the modern “factory floor” worker bee position. interestingly, a huge part of the field can’t accept that we aren’t especially unique or smart, just able to tell a computer how to process inputs. we take this need to feel as if we are a part of the intellectual class, based on a rose colored glasses view of a time 20 to 30 years ago when the only people that worked on software were all staff+ enigneers. then we create this perverse concept of a “real” engineer, and that engineer is just way more willing to aquiesce to _any_ thing you do, and therefore is a “team player”. telling someone to interview for two hours, having them decide that of all the offers of interviews they had yours was least interesting with the highest barrier to entry, and you deciding they were at fault isn’t going to help you deal with the modern realities of software, and how far we’ve come for our idealized version of where we came from
- sarchertech 4y ago
  The rest of the professional class certainly doesn’t interview the way we do. Neither do people in the trades. People in performance careers like orchestra musicians and actors are the only other professions that really come close for all but new grads.
  - corrral 4y ago
    But programming is special! The same approaches to hiring used for accountants or electricians couldn't possibly work! Don't you know programming is like painting? That's why we make people regurgitate algorithms they memorized in a high-pressure situation, while pretending they didn't memorize them. It's just like painting. eyeroll
    - twawaaay 4y ago
      Yeah, people kinda forget that not every job is the same. You can pretty much easily test if you have enough knowledge to be a good accountant or if you can play the violin well. There are couple smaller issues. Having knowledge will not tell you if they are hard working a knowing how to play violin well will not tell you if they will do well with orchestra and large audience. But in general you can do a testing period and be done with it. With developers... the main issue is that it is super difficult to judge how good a developer is and that is IMO mostly because there is a huge delay between making a decision and suffering consequences of the decision and then it is frequently difficult to tell how the consequences are connected to the decisions and what were the alternatives. And a lot of it is just opinions, so even if you hire a better developer you get into territory of trying to figure out whose opinion is right (probably the higher paid one? maybe?) And so when I hire developers I am trying to look at various other things that I hope are proxies for what I really need. So maybe I will try to look whether they have good judgement in general, how they dealt with difficult situations in the past. Maybe get to know them a little bit as a person. Which you don't have to do with an accountant or violinist.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  > telling someone to interview for two hours, having them decide that of all the offers of interviews they had yours was least interesting with the highest barrier to entry, and you deciding they were at fault isn’t going to help you deal with the modern realities of software But that is not my goal. My goal is hire as good developers as I can retain. I don't care about people bitching and moaning that the process is too arduous. Actually, I am happy about it because I can efficiently swipe left on them. If somebody does not care enough to work for us to put in couple of hours of work then they are very likely not a good candidate anyway. And if they have to apply to a huge number of companies to get a job there is probably some problem with them. I mean... a lot of companies are happy to put a warm body in a chair. If you can't find a job as a developer in this economy then you have to take a serious look at what you are doing wrong.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
2143 4y ago
> Bad news is that most people are not good developers and they don't even know about it How do I know if I'm good? Like, before applying, so that I don't have to waste anybody's time.
- tambourine_man 4y ago
  If you’re asking that question, you’re way above average already.
- pfarrell 4y ago
  Keep a personal resume doc going. List out the projects you’ve done, how you contributed, who benefitted, and quantify the benefit if you can. Keeping a running list like this is how you can build confidence and see a bigger picture to your career. I did this recently at my current job as I was approaching burnout. It helped me reset that tailspin.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  It is an excellent question. Having an answer to it would be very valuable and I spent a lot of time thinking about it but found no conclusive answer. Sadly. First of all, I do not condemn people trying to do their best to legally provide for themselves even if it means trying to get the job that they are not qualified for (as long as it is legal). Just look at our politicians. I might take an issue if you are straight lying about facts and your abilities. But at the same time I think I am fully justified to politely refuse to be the sucker that hires them. One reason you may want to know if you are qualified for the job is if you want to stay there for longer. Sometimes for some people stability over long term pays more than constantly getting jobs that are just above your level.
- vsareto 4y ago
  There's no good test. Otherwise, that would be the interview process. Usually, it is just others' opinions of you. You might try a bunch of different jobs, be bad at them, but eventually find a great fit where everyone respects your work. Those prior opinions don't really matter now, do they? One of the other key problems why it's difficult to answer is that the standards of development change very rapidly. You'd likely find the same questions in the spirit of "what makes a good punch card developer?" when those systems were around. There were probably a lot of interviewers with a lot of heuristics to hire the best, but those specifics don't matter any more either. And sometimes, it comes down to simply marketing yourself well or having good salesmanship or playing office politics.
jseban 4y ago
> Bad news is that most people are not good developers and they don't even know about it because really good developers are so few and concentrated in relatively few places. In effect, most developers will never have a chance to work with one. Yeah and having an outstanding skill or performance is not important in an average company/organisation, and will most likely give you only trouble. Larger organisations are risk averse, optimised for stability and longevity. Not short term performance. It's not a sports team.
ricksunny 4y ago
Not an SWE here - I wonder if the process itself is seen as value-creating by either side, even if a job offer isn't placed? For example, discussing code design may keep the hiring party at the cutting edge / state of the art without having to undertake refresher training cost. The candidate also gets to understand where they stack in terms of hiring companies' expectations, and may opt to retrain as necessary. (I'm reminded of the stories when FB was looking to make a smartphone pre-Oculus - it sounded like they were interviewing candidates but effectively getting design strategy consults out of them gratis, but that's probably more extreme than this).

hasmolo 4y ago

i don’t think you’re wrong, i just think you may have lost sight of some external factors. in 1995, the market was naturally filled with folks interested in computers more organically. now, software writing is the modern “factory floor” worker bee position. interestingly, a huge part of the field can’t accept that we aren’t especially unique or smart, just able to tell a computer how to process inputs. we take this need to feel as if we are a part of the intellectual class, based on a rose colored glasses view of a time 20 to 30 years ago when the only people that worked on software were all staff+ enigneers. then we create this perverse concept of a “real” engineer, and that engineer is just way more willing to aquiesce to _any_ thing you do, and therefore is a “team player”. telling someone to interview for two hours, having them decide that of all the offers of interviews they had yours was least interesting with the highest barrier to entry, and you deciding they were at fault isn’t going to help you deal with the modern realities of software, and how far we’ve come for our idealized version of where we came from

sarchertech 4y ago
The rest of the professional class certainly doesn’t interview the way we do. Neither do people in the trades. People in performance careers like orchestra musicians and actors are the only other professions that really come close for all but new grads.
- corrral 4y ago
  But programming is special! The same approaches to hiring used for accountants or electricians couldn't possibly work! Don't you know programming is like painting? That's why we make people regurgitate algorithms they memorized in a high-pressure situation, while pretending they didn't memorize them. It's just like painting. eyeroll
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    Yeah, people kinda forget that not every job is the same. You can pretty much easily test if you have enough knowledge to be a good accountant or if you can play the violin well. There are couple smaller issues. Having knowledge will not tell you if they are hard working a knowing how to play violin well will not tell you if they will do well with orchestra and large audience. But in general you can do a testing period and be done with it. With developers... the main issue is that it is super difficult to judge how good a developer is and that is IMO mostly because there is a huge delay between making a decision and suffering consequences of the decision and then it is frequently difficult to tell how the consequences are connected to the decisions and what were the alternatives. And a lot of it is just opinions, so even if you hire a better developer you get into territory of trying to figure out whose opinion is right (probably the higher paid one? maybe?) And so when I hire developers I am trying to look at various other things that I hope are proxies for what I really need. So maybe I will try to look whether they have good judgement in general, how they dealt with difficult situations in the past. Maybe get to know them a little bit as a person. Which you don't have to do with an accountant or violinist.
twawaaay 4y ago
> telling someone to interview for two hours, having them decide that of all the offers of interviews they had yours was least interesting with the highest barrier to entry, and you deciding they were at fault isn’t going to help you deal with the modern realities of software But that is not my goal. My goal is hire as good developers as I can retain. I don't care about people bitching and moaning that the process is too arduous. Actually, I am happy about it because I can efficiently swipe left on them. If somebody does not care enough to work for us to put in couple of hours of work then they are very likely not a good candidate anyway. And if they have to apply to a huge number of companies to get a job there is probably some problem with them. I mean... a lot of companies are happy to put a warm body in a chair. If you can't find a job as a developer in this economy then you have to take a serious look at what you are doing wrong.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

2143 4y ago

> Bad news is that most people are not good developers and they don't even know about it How do I know if I'm good? Like, before applying, so that I don't have to waste anybody's time.

tambourine_man 4y ago
If you’re asking that question, you’re way above average already.
pfarrell 4y ago
Keep a personal resume doc going. List out the projects you’ve done, how you contributed, who benefitted, and quantify the benefit if you can. Keeping a running list like this is how you can build confidence and see a bigger picture to your career. I did this recently at my current job as I was approaching burnout. It helped me reset that tailspin.
twawaaay 4y ago
It is an excellent question. Having an answer to it would be very valuable and I spent a lot of time thinking about it but found no conclusive answer. Sadly. First of all, I do not condemn people trying to do their best to legally provide for themselves even if it means trying to get the job that they are not qualified for (as long as it is legal). Just look at our politicians. I might take an issue if you are straight lying about facts and your abilities. But at the same time I think I am fully justified to politely refuse to be the sucker that hires them. One reason you may want to know if you are qualified for the job is if you want to stay there for longer. Sometimes for some people stability over long term pays more than constantly getting jobs that are just above your level.
vsareto 4y ago
There's no good test. Otherwise, that would be the interview process. Usually, it is just others' opinions of you. You might try a bunch of different jobs, be bad at them, but eventually find a great fit where everyone respects your work. Those prior opinions don't really matter now, do they? One of the other key problems why it's difficult to answer is that the standards of development change very rapidly. You'd likely find the same questions in the spirit of "what makes a good punch card developer?" when those systems were around. There were probably a lot of interviewers with a lot of heuristics to hire the best, but those specifics don't matter any more either. And sometimes, it comes down to simply marketing yourself well or having good salesmanship or playing office politics.

jseban 4y ago

> Bad news is that most people are not good developers and they don't even know about it because really good developers are so few and concentrated in relatively few places. In effect, most developers will never have a chance to work with one. Yeah and having an outstanding skill or performance is not important in an average company/organisation, and will most likely give you only trouble. Larger organisations are risk averse, optimised for stability and longevity. Not short term performance. It's not a sports team.

ricksunny 4y ago

Not an SWE here - I wonder if the process itself is seen as value-creating by either side, even if a job offer isn't placed? For example, discussing code design may keep the hiring party at the cutting edge / state of the art without having to undertake refresher training cost. The candidate also gets to understand where they stack in terms of hiring companies' expectations, and may opt to retrain as necessary. (I'm reminded of the stories when FB was looking to make a smartphone pre-Oculus - it sounded like they were interviewing candidates but effectively getting design strategy consults out of them gratis, but that's probably more extreme than this).