3 ms·

Generalist programmers get hired all the time at startups; as someone else mentioned, requirements are always changing and it often doesn't make sense to specia

by justin 14y ago

Generalist programmers get hired all the time at startups; as someone else mentioned, requirements are always changing and it often doesn't make sense to specialize immediately. At Justin.tv, we hired a ton of generalists before we ever hired any specialists. What I meant in the post was that if you are going to be programming then you need to demonstrate that you are a good programmer, hopefully with some specific abilities or experience that demonstrates you'll be able to work on the actual problems of the company. We hire people all the time that don't have massive experience in web development, but they demonstrate skill in some related way (e.g. maybe they talk about how they've used Python for scripting in their phd work). Anyways, the point is that even a generalist has specific projects that demonstrate they are a good programmer, and this goes beyond just listing a ton of languages they've dabbled in. Good programmers are generally very good at specific stuff they have experience in, and aren't necessarily good yet but can become good in other areas.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tmurray 14y ago
I read your post and this comment as arguing for resumes to focus on achievements ("this awesome thing is my fault") rather than tasks ("I did thing X as a means to an end while in role Y"). Is that a fair summary? If so, I think you're off the mark a bit when you say this applies only to startups; I think this applies when you are applying to specific roles at a company, regardless of the company's size. I don't work at a startup at all, but resumes with lists of papers with no direct relevance where the candidate is one of 10 co-authors, academic honors, TA positions that are irrelevant to the job at hand, lots of description about a former team's job rather than what the candidate did, etc. make my brain glaze over. I have to spend more time looking for the core nuggets of achievement buried within, and that's generally not time I have. It's not necessarily a killer for someone's interview process, but it's certainly not fun and drains my time. Meanwhile, people I encounter outside of the normal resume-submission process who simply point out something really cool they've done? If it's something really awesome, they get recruited, no real resume required.

by justin 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tmurray 14y ago

I read your post and this comment as arguing for resumes to focus on achievements ("this awesome thing is my fault") rather than tasks ("I did thing X as a means to an end while in role Y"). Is that a fair summary? If so, I think you're off the mark a bit when you say this applies only to startups; I think this applies when you are applying to specific roles at a company, regardless of the company's size. I don't work at a startup at all, but resumes with lists of papers with no direct relevance where the candidate is one of 10 co-authors, academic honors, TA positions that are irrelevant to the job at hand, lots of description about a former team's job rather than what the candidate did, etc. make my brain glaze over. I have to spend more time looking for the core nuggets of achievement buried within, and that's generally not time I have. It's not necessarily a killer for someone's interview process, but it's certainly not fun and drains my time. Meanwhile, people I encounter outside of the normal resume-submission process who simply point out something really cool they've done? If it's something really awesome, they get recruited, no real resume required.