4 ms·

In big corporate software most developers are beginners. Just some have remained beginners for 8-12 years. That is what you want to avoid. Expected non juniors

In big corporate software most developers are beginners. Just some have remained beginners for 8-12 years. That is what you want to avoid. Expected non juniors to be able to write software on their own. This is a colossal huge ask, because most developers cannot do this. Instead they bullshit with tech stacks, configurations, and expect open source tools to do their jobs for them. When real problems occur they are worthless. So, expect non juniors to actually write software. For junior developers you are looking for potential, the potential to independently write software in the future. I would look for people who can read, write, and follow instructions. Be extremely critical about this. Can they figure things out or do they require tremendous hand holding? It’s not about what they already know but what they can do and what they can figure out. Hopefully software will figure this out. It’s why I stopped developing. I got tired of working with people who are grossly incompetent, fully reliant on tech stacks, and extremely superficial and insecure. A bunch of expert developers inventing unnecessary complexity to justify their many years of inexperience in the line of work.

savorypiano 2y ago
Is this true? I've only had one software job but there was nobody like what you describe. Even the real juniors who only had one software job.
- austin-cheney 2y ago
  I did that corporate software thing for about 15 years. In that time from the people I worked with were generally Java developers or JavaScript developers. Here are the patterns I saw repeated across various employers: * QAs were more likely female and developers were more likely male. The QAs, irrespective of sex identity, almost always demonstrated superior communication skills. The difference wasn't even close. I have worked with some developers who could barely write two sentences but the good QAs could draft a precise set of instructions at a moments notice. * About 15% of the developers could really develop software with confidence. The rest wrote glue code, put text on screen, filled administrative responsibilities, and so forth. The most important thing for the less confident developers was retaining employment, advancing, or just generally seeking admiration. Delivering products or solving real problems are less interesting because it requires more work with less immediate gratification. These less confident developers are the ones most likely to frequently jump employers because that artificially drives up wages, resets their quest for admiration, and prevents exposure for their inability to write original software. * 10x developers are a real thing. These are people who are 10x, or more, productive than their peers. I have been a 10x developer. These people are not necessarily smarter or even better at writing software. The thing that stands out about these people is that they ask better questions and do things that aren't asked for, such as writing personal tools to automate away manual effort. * Not everybody is capable of performing software architecture. Software architecture is a test of organization competence. Higher intelligence is absolutely beneficial for this, but far less so than superior conscientiousness. Conscientiousness has a negative correlation to intelligence at around -0.27. That means the smartest guy in the room is most likely not the right person for this job. * Almost everybody has opinions about what to do but almost nobody measures anything. The mere idea of measuring things scares the shit out of those 85% of less competent developers. If you want to propose stellar ideas have stellar evidence, but even still be prepared for rejection merely because 85% of your peers are cowards who cannot deviate from their tiny capability set.

savorypiano 2y ago

Is this true? I've only had one software job but there was nobody like what you describe. Even the real juniors who only had one software job.

austin-cheney 2y ago
I did that corporate software thing for about 15 years. In that time from the people I worked with were generally Java developers or JavaScript developers. Here are the patterns I saw repeated across various employers: * QAs were more likely female and developers were more likely male. The QAs, irrespective of sex identity, almost always demonstrated superior communication skills. The difference wasn't even close. I have worked with some developers who could barely write two sentences but the good QAs could draft a precise set of instructions at a moments notice. * About 15% of the developers could really develop software with confidence. The rest wrote glue code, put text on screen, filled administrative responsibilities, and so forth. The most important thing for the less confident developers was retaining employment, advancing, or just generally seeking admiration. Delivering products or solving real problems are less interesting because it requires more work with less immediate gratification. These less confident developers are the ones most likely to frequently jump employers because that artificially drives up wages, resets their quest for admiration, and prevents exposure for their inability to write original software. * 10x developers are a real thing. These are people who are 10x, or more, productive than their peers. I have been a 10x developer. These people are not necessarily smarter or even better at writing software. The thing that stands out about these people is that they ask better questions and do things that aren't asked for, such as writing personal tools to automate away manual effort. * Not everybody is capable of performing software architecture. Software architecture is a test of organization competence. Higher intelligence is absolutely beneficial for this, but far less so than superior conscientiousness. Conscientiousness has a negative correlation to intelligence at around -0.27. That means the smartest guy in the room is most likely not the right person for this job. * Almost everybody has opinions about what to do but almost nobody measures anything. The mere idea of measuring things scares the shit out of those 85% of less competent developers. If you want to propose stellar ideas have stellar evidence, but even still be prepared for rejection merely because 85% of your peers are cowards who cannot deviate from their tiny capability set.