4 ms·

I understand, directionally I'd agree, but practically speaking, would you rather be a computer programmer in an era when VCs are dumping money in software, or

by trgn 3y ago

I understand, directionally I'd agree, but practically speaking, would you rather be a computer programmer in an era when VCs are dumping money in software, or in one when this is not case?

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
I've never worked for a VC firm and wouldn't unless I had no other options. I don't like the business model, I don't like the pressure to grow ad-infinitum, I don't like the prospect of investors who don't understand the business they are in dictating the product. I strictly work for privately owned companies. They're not always perfect but the sensible-to-utter-nonsense ratio from leadership is FAR, FAR better.
- trgn 3y ago
  > I've never worked for a VC firm I don't think it actually matters (?) All practitioners, in VC funded company or not, benefit from frothy demand for programmers, even if a lot of that demand is driven by "dumb" money. I mean, compare to the years after .com crash, or the current lean years. I don't know, I think we should prefer the fat years?
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
No. That is pretty typical HN bias. I’ve too never worked anywhere VC-funded. Any increase in remuneration I’ve received as a result of a tech bubble at the very least has to be weighed up against the indirect downsides. The dominant technologies of the last 10+ years have been influenced by a) nothing needing to be built to last, and b) lots of companies having insanely high head counts resulting in over-engineered solutions. Both of these things have made my job leas enjoyable and I’d at the very least consider taking a pay cut to be in a world where things went differently. I can think of plenty of other downsides.
- trgn 3y ago
  > has to be weighed up against the indirect downsides Renumeration is directly measurable (and I think directly attribute to sustained investment in the industry, notably VCs), while the indirect downsides are just harder to pinpoint how and why they arise. e.g. low quality code bases ... I've seen that in all types of organizations, I've also seen very high quality code in VC-funded startups.
dasil003 3y ago
Both! I started my professional career in the year 2000 where I learned how to be resourceful. In the 2010s this positioned me to “do more with less” while still cashing in on the overall prosperity and bigger budgets. Now that belts are tightening again, my experience sets me apart from anyone under 35 in tech who spent their entire career in an unprecedented bull market. Change is good, otherwise power structures ossify and things get stagnant.
- trgn 3y ago
  > my experience sets me apart from anyone under 35 in tech great to hear. It's nice to hear experienced practitioners speak with confidence about their future prospects. The doom&gloom you read a lot about agism etc.. are scary.

by trgn 3y ago

I understand, directionally I'd agree, but practically speaking, would you rather be a computer programmer in an era when VCs are dumping money in software, or in one when this is not case?

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

I've never worked for a VC firm and wouldn't unless I had no other options. I don't like the business model, I don't like the pressure to grow ad-infinitum, I don't like the prospect of investors who don't understand the business they are in dictating the product. I strictly work for privately owned companies. They're not always perfect but the sensible-to-utter-nonsense ratio from leadership is FAR, FAR better.

trgn 3y ago
> I've never worked for a VC firm I don't think it actually matters (?) All practitioners, in VC funded company or not, benefit from frothy demand for programmers, even if a lot of that demand is driven by "dumb" money. I mean, compare to the years after .com crash, or the current lean years. I don't know, I think we should prefer the fat years?

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

No. That is pretty typical HN bias. I’ve too never worked anywhere VC-funded. Any increase in remuneration I’ve received as a result of a tech bubble at the very least has to be weighed up against the indirect downsides. The dominant technologies of the last 10+ years have been influenced by a) nothing needing to be built to last, and b) lots of companies having insanely high head counts resulting in over-engineered solutions. Both of these things have made my job leas enjoyable and I’d at the very least consider taking a pay cut to be in a world where things went differently. I can think of plenty of other downsides.

trgn 3y ago
> has to be weighed up against the indirect downsides Renumeration is directly measurable (and I think directly attribute to sustained investment in the industry, notably VCs), while the indirect downsides are just harder to pinpoint how and why they arise. e.g. low quality code bases ... I've seen that in all types of organizations, I've also seen very high quality code in VC-funded startups.

dasil003 3y ago

Both! I started my professional career in the year 2000 where I learned how to be resourceful. In the 2010s this positioned me to “do more with less” while still cashing in on the overall prosperity and bigger budgets. Now that belts are tightening again, my experience sets me apart from anyone under 35 in tech who spent their entire career in an unprecedented bull market. Change is good, otherwise power structures ossify and things get stagnant.

trgn 3y ago
> my experience sets me apart from anyone under 35 in tech great to hear. It's nice to hear experienced practitioners speak with confidence about their future prospects. The doom&gloom you read a lot about agism etc.. are scary.