4 ms·

> Thing is if you’ve been around the block and have a decent understanding of fundamentals…it just doesn’t matter what the fad of the week is. It’s just noise.

by edanm 3y ago

> Thing is if you’ve been around the block and have a decent understanding of fundamentals…it just doesn’t matter what the fad of the week is. It’s just noise. Old principles repackaged with different conventions. This is just not true. Entire fields exist today that didn't exist or barely existed even a few years ago. As an example, the field I've been working in for ~7 years is Data Engineering, and it was "relatively" new when I first started, or at least the modern way of doing it was. Since then, some specific technologies have become fairly commonplace, like Airflow and dbt. Does this mean everyone should have experience with this tech? No, of course not. But does this mean that someone should know that the field exists and what's different about it compared to other kinds of stacks? For some people, absolutely it's important. A "senior" backend engineer who wants to solve an "ETL-pipeline to Data Warehouse" shaped project will hopefully know that there are standard modern tools in that area, and not just to try and do it with {insert their standard backend framework}. Similarly, someone who hasn't "kept up with the times" in the world of frontends might not know much about SPAs. Are SPAs always the solution? No, there are now trends going back towards traditional server-only approaches. But there's a difference in knowing that they exist and what their place is and choosing a different approach thoughtfully, vs not knowing they are even a thing.

jghn 3y ago
> know that the field exists and what's different about it This is closer to what I was trying to get at regard skills. I don't give a flip if someone knows Airflow, or DBT, or whatever. Besides, both of them are transitioning to the rear view mirror anyways. However I have found that it can be a surprisingly difficult jump for people to shift to directed graph based, data workflow thinking - some backgrounds more than others (side note: FP background tends to have no problem w/ models like pipeline oriented development) But the real issue is how many people just ossify over time. I don't necessarily care that they've been using the same Enterprise Java/XML/PHP/etc stack since the early Aughts. I care that they've turned off their brain in the process and have little to no knowledge of the world beyond it. I care that they haven't solved a hard problem in 15+ years, and instead have been making small, incremental changes all this time. I've been there myself, and it takes a lot of work to dig out of it. The thing an ideal older candidate would bring to the table is the ability to say "Oh yes, I've seen this concept 15 times over again. Here are the general pros of the approach, and here are the general cons. This new flavor patches over cons 4, 5, and 6 at the cost of losing pro 8. But we need to be careful about cons 2 & 3". The poor older candidate will state firmly that they've seen this all before and nothing new is happening here. There's a big difference between the two.
- edanm 3y ago
  Agree with everything. > Besides, both of them are transitioning to the rear view mirror anyways. I wonder why you say this? What do you think is replacing Airflow and dbt?

by edanm 3y ago

jghn 3y ago

> know that the field exists and what's different about it This is closer to what I was trying to get at regard skills. I don't give a flip if someone knows Airflow, or DBT, or whatever. Besides, both of them are transitioning to the rear view mirror anyways. However I have found that it can be a surprisingly difficult jump for people to shift to directed graph based, data workflow thinking - some backgrounds more than others (side note: FP background tends to have no problem w/ models like pipeline oriented development) But the real issue is how many people just ossify over time. I don't necessarily care that they've been using the same Enterprise Java/XML/PHP/etc stack since the early Aughts. I care that they've turned off their brain in the process and have little to no knowledge of the world beyond it. I care that they haven't solved a hard problem in 15+ years, and instead have been making small, incremental changes all this time. I've been there myself, and it takes a lot of work to dig out of it. The thing an ideal older candidate would bring to the table is the ability to say "Oh yes, I've seen this concept 15 times over again. Here are the general pros of the approach, and here are the general cons. This new flavor patches over cons 4, 5, and 6 at the cost of losing pro 8. But we need to be careful about cons 2 & 3". The poor older candidate will state firmly that they've seen this all before and nothing new is happening here. There's a big difference between the two.

edanm 3y ago
Agree with everything. > Besides, both of them are transitioning to the rear view mirror anyways. I wonder why you say this? What do you think is replacing Airflow and dbt?