3 ms·

I’d urge you to not so flatly dismiss someone’s opinion as wrong. The situation is obviously (I would think) more nuanced than that. I’d also argue that if a s

I’d urge you to not so flatly dismiss someone’s opinion as wrong. The situation is obviously (I would think) more nuanced than that. I’d also argue that if a senior developer does not have control over their VCS, they should rethink their title. These are tools in a toolbox - you don’t need to be an expert in all of them, but seniority requires, at a minimum, proficiency.

toastercat 3y ago
Not to dismiss your opinion, but for someone arguing in favor of nuance, your perspective on seniority is surprisingly... un-nuanced. So a senior is not a senior if they are not proficient at Git? How do you even measure that proficiency? EDIT: FWIW, I don't value titles like "senior" and never took them to be meaningful.
- kaishiro 3y ago
  > So a senior is not a senior if they are not proficient at Git? In my opinion (for whatever that's worth!), no (although I would say VCS in general, not git specifically). I personally consider being able to properly version control your code to be a critical skill when it comes to development - regardless of your place on the stack. YMMV. > FWIW, I don't value titles like "senior" and never took them to be meaningful. I don't necessarily disagree with regard to the current state of the industry, however as a proponent of development having more professional standards I still believe that we should be attempting to find some common ground on the standards of proficiency and mentorship.