3 ms·
This isn't totally unique to software engineering (and broadly speaking knowledge, science and maybe even content in general) but I feel it's better placed here
by erur 4y ago
This isn't totally unique to software engineering (and broadly speaking knowledge, science and maybe even content in general) but I feel it's better placed here than anywhere else.
We're in a near global, near zero-marginal-cost environment.
If you build a broom that's mediocre, someone can still sweep with it and it's worth something.
In this realm though, if you build a mediocre version of something that already exists in a better form, it's likely worth nothing.
That shouldn't keep anyone from enjoying building mediocre things - which might be the only path to get into a position to build great things.
But it does make sense if your goal is to have an impact with the specific thing you're working on.
- BossingAround 4y ago> In this realm though, if you build a mediocre version of something that already exists in a better form, it's likely worth nothing. That is technically true, though realistically, many companies will spend money implementing mediocre projects. Alternatively, a company might lose their edge and slip into a mediocre mode after gaining great market share. In other words, while in long-enough run, you are right that such companies will not "make it," they will happily pay mediocre salaries for mediocre programmers in the meantime. Consequently, "being a mediocre engineer" and "building mediocre things" is a sufficient and realistic career goal.
- CM30 4y agoDepends on the marketing and advertising budget. Plenty of mediocre products have made their companies billions of dollars, and become hugely successful in their specific industries. It's very true that software engineering is a near zero cost, global environment, but that doesn't necessarily meant the best products win every time.