4 ms·

Absolutely. I loathe the emphasis on being an 'X programmer' in the software industry. I've never met anyone who described themselves as an 'Autocad engineer'.

by gamble 17y ago

gaius 17y ago
There is a management culture of referring to technical people as "resources", e.g. this person is a "Java resource" and we'll need 3 "Linux resources" on that project. They sure don't like it when I call 'em "Powerpoint resources".
- ovi256 17y ago
  Tell me about it. The firm where I'm at used to be quite small, and MBA talk was non-existent. Now project managers use it a lot. We engineers used it ironically at first, but now it's starting to taint us ... Powerpoint resources is a great way to put it. I'll be sure to use it.
- abalashov 17y ago
  LOL. Quote of the day. This made me happy. I laughed -- actually, more than that, I snorted. Thank you!
- Tamerlin 17y ago
  It's very de-humanizing. Even in places that claim otherwise, they tend to treat technical staff like interchangeable parts, rather than people. And they wonder why their best folks tend also to be the least loyal.
monocasa 17y ago
Well, in their defense, while someone may not be called an Autocad engineer, they can certainly be called civil engineer focusing on concrete stresses. Calling them an Autocad engineer would be like me calling you an eclipse or vi programmer. Ultimately I think we're confusing tool and end product here.
- pmichaud 17y ago
  I think that's sort of the point being made -- you might not find eclipse programmer, but you'll find plenty of Java or .NET programmers, and those are tools also.
  - moron4hire 17y ago
    I know a lot of people who put "Eclipse" and "Visual Studio" on their resumes.
    - Retric 17y ago
      Learning to really use Eclipse or Visual Studio well takes a surprising amount of time. So, IMO it's reasonable padding for a resume, but people don't call themselves Visual Studio developers. What people most often identify with seems to be the frameworks they are using. So you will see someone call themselves a .Net Developer not C# .Net coder even if that's what they do. They don't know all of .Net but they feel confident they know how to approach most .Net issues and they happen to use .Net and Visual Studio. I could have looked at the Spring stack or Coca, but I think the point still stands. Even if someone is calling themselves an OX X developer they are talking about knowing the same type of thing as a .Net developer.
  - monocasa 17y ago
    I think you're missing the original point I was trying to make. Java and .Net aren't really the tools, they're the medium in which you work. Just like that civil engineer understands the trade offs invovled with different kins of concrete ad using it in different ways, the Java programmer understands the trade offs involved with the API and VM, in addition to generic CS tradeoffs. Look at the following two fake resume excerpts: Bob T. Builder : Civil Engineer with Emphasis in Concrete Stress ---Skills--- Autocad : Industry Used Physics Modeling Software Suzie M. Hacker : Java Programmer ---Skills--- Eclipse : Ant They seem roughly equivalent to me...
- rbanffy 17y ago
  OTOH, being called "an emacs programmer" can be interpreted as a compliment ;-)
dagw 17y ago
I've never met anyone who described themselves as an 'Autocad engineer'. Every engineer will describe themselves as an 'X engineer' where X is equal to automotive, or electrical or structural or something similar. No engineer is going to think that just because they're really good at design underwater oil pipelines, they'll be equally awesome at designing cars. Many programmers on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that once they've learned how to 'program' they'll be equally adept at writing ray tracers, TCP/IP stacks and video editors (as long as they get to use their favourite language).
- gamble 17y ago
  My post was ambiguous, but I didn't mean to say that engineers don't specialize. The difference is that an engineer's value lies in their understanding of a technical domain and skill in analysis and design, not the particular tools they use. It's perfectly valid to describe oneself as a 'web developer' or 'systems programmer'. What bugs me is calling yourself a 'C++ programmer' or a 'Ruby hacker'. Emphasizing skill with a tool is the mark of a tradesman - it abets the industry dysfunction of viewing programmers as interchangeable resources who should be slotted into a project with minimal investment.
  - dagw 17y ago
    While I agree with everything you say, I think one has to accept that not only are many programmers tradesmen, but many of them are happy being tradesmen. I know people who won't consider any programming job where they won't be working on php based web sites, because that's all they know and they have no real interest in learning anything else. Those people are "php programmers" and can be slotted into great number of projects with minimal investment. What is needed is not to get annoyed at these peoples existence or their approach to programming, but to find a way to differentiate between them and other types of programmers.
    - gamble 17y ago
      They'll be differentiated by the disappearance of their job overseas... People who fashion themselves into interchangeable parts shouldn't be surprised if they're swapped for cheaper substitutes.
DrJokepu 17y ago
The sad truth is, average and below-average developers actually need considerable training to learn a new programming language. They can't just look at the specs and read some tutorials to get an understanding of the conceptual and syntactical differences and then start hacking. They need to be trained. Also, to counter your 'Autocad engineer' example, commercial airline pilots can be described as a 'Boeing 747 pilot' or an 'Airbus A318' pilot. You need certification to fly a specific model and can't just hop in and start flying a different model.
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  > commercial airline pilots can be described as a 'Boeing 747 pilot' or an 'Airbus A318' pilot. I don't think that's a good analogy. Pilots are operators, not creators. What they do is pretty much defined by what devices they use to do it. Engineers, in contrast, use tools to create new things, and are defined by what kinds of things they create (e.g. civil infrastructure, electrical systems, computer architecture), not what tools they use to create them.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  Actually, none of the private or commercial pilots I've known have ever referred to themselves that way. Granted, my sample size is limited, but I think that every one of them would be as annoyed at being referred to as an <aircraft x> Pilot as I am at being referred to as a <language x> Programmer.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  Below-average developers aren't really software devs. They're requirements engineers who use a semi-formal spec language.

Absolutely. I loathe the emphasis on being an 'X programmer' in the software industry. I've never met anyone who described themselves as an 'Autocad engineer'.

by gamble 17y ago

Absolutely. I loathe the emphasis on being an 'X programmer' in the software industry. I've never met anyone who described themselves as an 'Autocad engineer'.

gaius 17y ago

There is a management culture of referring to technical people as "resources", e.g. this person is a "Java resource" and we'll need 3 "Linux resources" on that project. They sure don't like it when I call 'em "Powerpoint resources".

ovi256 17y ago
Tell me about it. The firm where I'm at used to be quite small, and MBA talk was non-existent. Now project managers use it a lot. We engineers used it ironically at first, but now it's starting to taint us ... Powerpoint resources is a great way to put it. I'll be sure to use it.
abalashov 17y ago
LOL. Quote of the day. This made me happy. I laughed -- actually, more than that, I snorted. Thank you!
Tamerlin 17y ago
It's very de-humanizing. Even in places that claim otherwise, they tend to treat technical staff like interchangeable parts, rather than people. And they wonder why their best folks tend also to be the least loyal.

monocasa 17y ago

Well, in their defense, while someone may not be called an Autocad engineer, they can certainly be called civil engineer focusing on concrete stresses. Calling them an Autocad engineer would be like me calling you an eclipse or vi programmer. Ultimately I think we're confusing tool and end product here.

pmichaud 17y ago
I think that's sort of the point being made -- you might not find eclipse programmer, but you'll find plenty of Java or .NET programmers, and those are tools also.
- moron4hire 17y ago
  I know a lot of people who put "Eclipse" and "Visual Studio" on their resumes.
  - Retric 17y ago
    Learning to really use Eclipse or Visual Studio well takes a surprising amount of time. So, IMO it's reasonable padding for a resume, but people don't call themselves Visual Studio developers. What people most often identify with seems to be the frameworks they are using. So you will see someone call themselves a .Net Developer not C# .Net coder even if that's what they do. They don't know all of .Net but they feel confident they know how to approach most .Net issues and they happen to use .Net and Visual Studio. I could have looked at the Spring stack or Coca, but I think the point still stands. Even if someone is calling themselves an OX X developer they are talking about knowing the same type of thing as a .Net developer.
- monocasa 17y ago
  I think you're missing the original point I was trying to make. Java and .Net aren't really the tools, they're the medium in which you work. Just like that civil engineer understands the trade offs invovled with different kins of concrete ad using it in different ways, the Java programmer understands the trade offs involved with the API and VM, in addition to generic CS tradeoffs. Look at the following two fake resume excerpts: Bob T. Builder : Civil Engineer with Emphasis in Concrete Stress ---Skills--- Autocad : Industry Used Physics Modeling Software Suzie M. Hacker : Java Programmer ---Skills--- Eclipse : Ant They seem roughly equivalent to me...
rbanffy 17y ago
OTOH, being called "an emacs programmer" can be interpreted as a compliment ;-)

dagw 17y ago

I've never met anyone who described themselves as an 'Autocad engineer'. Every engineer will describe themselves as an 'X engineer' where X is equal to automotive, or electrical or structural or something similar. No engineer is going to think that just because they're really good at design underwater oil pipelines, they'll be equally awesome at designing cars. Many programmers on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that once they've learned how to 'program' they'll be equally adept at writing ray tracers, TCP/IP stacks and video editors (as long as they get to use their favourite language).

gamble 17y ago
My post was ambiguous, but I didn't mean to say that engineers don't specialize. The difference is that an engineer's value lies in their understanding of a technical domain and skill in analysis and design, not the particular tools they use. It's perfectly valid to describe oneself as a 'web developer' or 'systems programmer'. What bugs me is calling yourself a 'C++ programmer' or a 'Ruby hacker'. Emphasizing skill with a tool is the mark of a tradesman - it abets the industry dysfunction of viewing programmers as interchangeable resources who should be slotted into a project with minimal investment.
- dagw 17y ago
  While I agree with everything you say, I think one has to accept that not only are many programmers tradesmen, but many of them are happy being tradesmen. I know people who won't consider any programming job where they won't be working on php based web sites, because that's all they know and they have no real interest in learning anything else. Those people are "php programmers" and can be slotted into great number of projects with minimal investment. What is needed is not to get annoyed at these peoples existence or their approach to programming, but to find a way to differentiate between them and other types of programmers.
  - gamble 17y ago
    They'll be differentiated by the disappearance of their job overseas... People who fashion themselves into interchangeable parts shouldn't be surprised if they're swapped for cheaper substitutes.

DrJokepu 17y ago

The sad truth is, average and below-average developers actually need considerable training to learn a new programming language. They can't just look at the specs and read some tutorials to get an understanding of the conceptual and syntactical differences and then start hacking. They need to be trained. Also, to counter your 'Autocad engineer' example, commercial airline pilots can be described as a 'Boeing 747 pilot' or an 'Airbus A318' pilot. You need certification to fly a specific model and can't just hop in and start flying a different model.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
> commercial airline pilots can be described as a 'Boeing 747 pilot' or an 'Airbus A318' pilot. I don't think that's a good analogy. Pilots are operators, not creators. What they do is pretty much defined by what devices they use to do it. Engineers, in contrast, use tools to create new things, and are defined by what kinds of things they create (e.g. civil infrastructure, electrical systems, computer architecture), not what tools they use to create them.
shpxnvz 17y ago
Actually, none of the private or commercial pilots I've known have ever referred to themselves that way. Granted, my sample size is limited, but I think that every one of them would be as annoyed at being referred to as an <aircraft x> Pilot as I am at being referred to as a <language x> Programmer.
lallysingh 17y ago
Below-average developers aren't really software devs. They're requirements engineers who use a semi-formal spec language.