4 ms·
> worked on 1 codebase for at least 3 years I get why you would have this on your list but I'm not planning on staying at a job that I don't like, or with a co
by jstx1 3y ago
> worked on 1 codebase for at least 3 years
I get why you would have this on your list but I'm not planning on staying at a job that I don't like, or with a company that's underpaying me, or insisting to be stuck on the same project for 3 years just so I can meet someone's arbitrary criteria for a senior. And I'm saying arbitrary because:
> worked in at least 2 companies (or vastly different teams)
> worked on 1 codebase for at least 3 years
so 6 months at job 1, and 3 years at job 2 (without changing codebase) makes you senior but 10 years with 4 jobs of 2.5 years each is not senior?
This why all of this is pointless gatekeeping - you're senior if you have a senior title. And if you do, it doesn't mean all that much and that's okay.
- hardware2win 3y ago>So 6 months at job 1, and 3 years at job 2 (without changing codebase) and you're senior but 10 years with 4 jobs of 2.5 years each is not senior? You're missing the point. It is about exclusion of ppl who jump between projects every 1.x year and have never witnessed whole software development life cycle. How can you evaluate your design if you never witnessed how it matured cuz you are already out by the time this phase comes?
- jstx1 3y ago> It is about exclusion of ppl who jump between projects every 1.x year It's not every 1.x year, the author is excluding everyone who doesn't spend at least 3 years on a project.
- hardware2win 3y ago3 is not some magic constant that comes from physics or something It was just author's number. It may vary by industry, specialization, etc. But the goal is the same