3 ms·
IMHO that definition is flawed. For lots of people senior != time on something. That's what usually recruiters have to back on because they don't have any other
by blackxored 14y ago
IMHO that definition is flawed. For lots of people senior != time on something. That's what usually recruiters have to back on because they don't have any other measures. I'm asking from a programmer standpoint. I remember dhh's joke on some position in NY (NYT or Library, can't recall) position requiring 8 years of Rails experience ;)
- j45 14y agoI'm not sure what's so flawed. I've been developing for over a decade. And the more senior you get.. the more languages are simply syntax. When I hire a senior developer, I'm hiring their senior thinking and senior analysis abilities, not their ability of having worked with one particular syntax or framework. Senior ultimately means built, scaled, and managed a code base that you have a relationship with for more than 1-3 years. I would guess than many Rails developers have not had a deep relationship with a large Rails codebase for many years, but may have with other languages, so it's where I was coming from.