4 ms·

I am not sure you understand the problem. Your first sentence hints that you know that there needs to be other things than tech stack and salary to find talente

I am not sure you understand the problem. Your first sentence hints that you know that there needs to be other things than tech stack and salary to find talented C++ programmers. But the second sentence pretends like you didn't write the first sentence. I said tech stack affects hiring more than salary. I didn't say there is a lack of C++ programmers. I was very explicit about my statement.

pjmlp 2y ago
Have done consulting with banks as customers, I definitly wouldn't want to work for one, regardless of the tech stack, and money being offered. This is what OP was hinting at.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  OP was ignoring the point and basically implied the reason banks have issues hiring these days is because they're banks. While in the past they didn't have these issues. Why? Because tech stack matters for a lot of people.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    They always had these issues, I barely know anyone that freely replied to job interviews for a bank, given the work environment, as I am approaching 50y, have already seen quite a lot in consulting projects.
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      They had the same problems everyone had. There are more jobs than programmers to do the jobs. But now they've got the added problem of Rust, Go, etc taking over.
krageon 2y ago
You weren't all that explicit, and GP responded to your comment as written. There really is no call for being this rude just because you think you were misunderstood.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  1. I explicitly wrote that people care more about tech stack than salary. Then gave an example where an industry has that problem. The response was about if you have other attributes you can find someone. Fundamentally ignoring the point. 2. Rude? The person who replied did what was said. The first sentence implied that my point was indeed correct. Then the second sentence just ignored what the first sentence implied and ignored the point. They seemed to think the problem is a long-standing problem that banks have. Instead of a problem that has been growing for years because the supply of people who know the tech stack is decreasing. It's fair to point out to people you don't think they understand the problem. 3. Misunderstood? I believe they implied in their first sentence I was correct and that they understood the point. They just didn't like the point.

pjmlp 2y ago

Have done consulting with banks as customers, I definitly wouldn't want to work for one, regardless of the tech stack, and money being offered. This is what OP was hinting at.

that_guy_iain 2y ago
OP was ignoring the point and basically implied the reason banks have issues hiring these days is because they're banks. While in the past they didn't have these issues. Why? Because tech stack matters for a lot of people.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  They always had these issues, I barely know anyone that freely replied to job interviews for a bank, given the work environment, as I am approaching 50y, have already seen quite a lot in consulting projects.
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    They had the same problems everyone had. There are more jobs than programmers to do the jobs. But now they've got the added problem of Rust, Go, etc taking over.

krageon 2y ago

You weren't all that explicit, and GP responded to your comment as written. There really is no call for being this rude just because you think you were misunderstood.

that_guy_iain 2y ago
1. I explicitly wrote that people care more about tech stack than salary. Then gave an example where an industry has that problem. The response was about if you have other attributes you can find someone. Fundamentally ignoring the point. 2. Rude? The person who replied did what was said. The first sentence implied that my point was indeed correct. Then the second sentence just ignored what the first sentence implied and ignored the point. They seemed to think the problem is a long-standing problem that banks have. Instead of a problem that has been growing for years because the supply of people who know the tech stack is decreasing. It's fair to point out to people you don't think they understand the problem. 3. Misunderstood? I believe they implied in their first sentence I was correct and that they understood the point. They just didn't like the point.