4 ms·
I have known plenty of developers who may be great at coding a task but fall flat when architecting the same systems. There are often tradeoffs that must be mad
by liquidise 12y ago
I have known plenty of developers who may be great at coding a task but fall flat when architecting the same systems. There are often tradeoffs that must be made for business or technology purposes. These tradeoffs are generally product or engineering decisions that i would hesitate having a developer make.
There are just functional differences between developing software and engineering it. The sooner the software industry recognizes these differences, the better served we will all be.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> I have known plenty of developers who may be great at coding a task but fall flat when architecting the same systems. AFAIK, the whole reason for the role title "software developer" is to indicate a breadth that goes beyond mere coding and subsumes system design and requirements analysis. So a software developer shouldn't fall down on that task.
- sbov 12y agoOne company's developer is another company's engineer. Most companies name them one or another and don't have both positions in house. This is because they tend to do the same thing regardless of title, its more about what the company wants to call them. Edit: other than that, what you seem to be speaking of is more about experience. An experienced "developer" will have a better time at architecting a solution than an inexperienced "engineer".
- bones6 12y agoI have seen this at my jobs. Usually the titles are defined by HR so they can set the pay range to some sort of industry standard for that title. They often do not reflect the type of work being done to a highly specific degree. Some places are probably great at this classification of employees, but I've yet to see it personally.