Ask HN: Reasons to stay in Software Engineering
57 comments
First of all, you don't have to stay in the software domain if you don't want to. However, your concerns do not seems to be very specific to the software domain:
* Everyone can be a "software developer". Everyone can also be a [whatever]. Why would you want to have a whole profession for yourself? If you don't have to prove yourself during the interview, you'll have to do it on the job. This is not going to be different somewhere else. In general, is better for you if your colleagues have to meet a minimum competency standard.
* You have to know _a lot_. There is a lot and there is a lot that changes. There is also a lot that stays the same and a lot that you can transfer from an area to another. Once you are a good at design, architecture, Test Driven Development, Pair-Programming etc. you are not going to forget everything just because you have to use a new programming language.
After all it's "just" software. How you solves the problem and write your code internally is going to influence how good it works (bugs, performance) and how fast you can change and improve it. People will care about that. Usually, you are going to work in a team and your colleagues will also care about your solutions.
* Everyone can be a "software developer". Everyone can also be a [whatever]. Why would you want to have a whole profession for yourself? If you don't have to prove yourself during the interview, you'll have to do it on the job. This is not going to be different somewhere else. In general, is better for you if your colleagues have to meet a minimum competency standard.
* You have to know _a lot_. There is a lot and there is a lot that changes. There is also a lot that stays the same and a lot that you can transfer from an area to another. Once you are a good at design, architecture, Test Driven Development, Pair-Programming etc. you are not going to forget everything just because you have to use a new programming language.
After all it's "just" software. How you solves the problem and write your code internally is going to influence how good it works (bugs, performance) and how fast you can change and improve it. People will care about that. Usually, you are going to work in a team and your colleagues will also care about your solutions.
[deleted]
> After all it's "just" software. Besides yourself, nobody really cares how you solved the problem.
More that once I've come across such crossroads, and the answer for me is:
(i) Find a niche in which you can excel, master your domain and then people will "care".
OR
(ii) Don't worry about how others perceive you as long as you are having fun along the journey. Find a way to stay happy.
More that once I've come across such crossroads, and the answer for me is:
(i) Find a niche in which you can excel, master your domain and then people will "care".
OR
(ii) Don't worry about how others perceive you as long as you are having fun along the journey. Find a way to stay happy.
In my experience, whiteboard interviewing is uncommon here in Europe, with the exception of American companies. Non-American companies either don't want you touching a white board at all or give you only basic white board excercises, mostly to see how you comunicate and if you're not a total fraud.
For the wage, being a manager is better. If you really like programming, you'll find that boring.
My strategy is to build stuff with other folks, create a value and try to transform that to real money (with a startup for example).
I think your real question is more around what you wanna do with your life.
My strategy is to build stuff with other folks, create a value and try to transform that to real money (with a startup for example).
I think your real question is more around what you wanna do with your life.
Everyone can be a "software developer". Even thought I went through a really though and challenging university degree, which I finished distinctly above average, I have to go through whiteboard interviews. This won't change with additional job experience. For some reason, companies do highly mistrust my skills and degree. Other jobs, equally well paid, do not require this.
I don’t give any credence to the college someone graduated from when I’m conducting job interviews. I have a computer science degree, but I’ve seen too many people graduate with a computer science degree that cAn talk theory all day long but couldn’t program their way out of wet paper bag. On the “smart and get things done” quadrant, they were completely on the “smart” quadrant.
I have been a software developer for over 20 years, but unfortunately I spent way too long at one company and became an “expert beginner”[1]. So I’ll just talk about the last ten. For all intents and purposes, I may have gotten three solid years of usable experience out of my first 12. I’ve had 5 jobs in the last 10 years - my interview experience.
1. A semi technical interview. No white boarding. I just described my experience and thought process about delivering results. They were a startup and liked my practical experience delivering code.
2. I did a pair programming test where they had a project with failing unit tests and I had to refactor the code to make the tests pass. I think they had a written test with some practical questions and a coding part.
3. By now, my years of experience and practical worthwhile knowledge had finally gotten somewhat in sync. I was applying for senior level roles. They asked technically questions, a whiteboard interview where they wanted me to design a scalable, fault tolerant system and a normalized database system. They quizzed me on my design decisions.
4. A team lead position where the hiring manager asked me about my 90 day plan to create a software development department and to come up with a migration development plan to move them off of an old Access backed system.
5. A white boarding discussion about the company’s current technical issues with scalability, automation, fault tolerance and suggestions about how I would tackle them.
I did have to do a whiteboard coding exercise that consisted of writing a merge sort. I did it, they made an offer but after seeing the interview process, I knew that was a company I would never work for at the position they were interviewing for. They did make me an offer though.
You have to know _a lot_. Programming languages, Tools, Operating Systems, Tests etc. On top of that, specific domain knowledge is required. Unfortunately, my brain forgets and if I work with different technologies, after 1 year I will not start at 0 but definitely neither at 100%.
I consider myself a full stack developer/architect from the web down to (cloud hosted) net ops/Dev ops/development. I can go in with no infrastructure and design a pretty good system at each level. Yes if I am not constantly working on a part of the stack - especially the front end - I do have ramp up time to get at a high level of efficiency. But people do it all of the time.
This is no different than any other high paying profession. You’re expected to know a lot about your field or at least be able to ramp up fast.
After all it's "just" software. Besides yourself, nobody really cares how you solved the problem. Sure, it's quite appealing to think through a complex system, tune it, develop it etc. but often it includes cumbersome work and decisions are made elsewhere.
Most software development involves maintenance of other people’s code. People very much care about how you implement something.
As far as being able to make your own decisions, the secret is working for a small company. But only do that after you gain some real world experience and can learn from others.
I don’t give any credence to the college someone graduated from when I’m conducting job interviews. I have a computer science degree, but I’ve seen too many people graduate with a computer science degree that cAn talk theory all day long but couldn’t program their way out of wet paper bag. On the “smart and get things done” quadrant, they were completely on the “smart” quadrant.
I have been a software developer for over 20 years, but unfortunately I spent way too long at one company and became an “expert beginner”[1]. So I’ll just talk about the last ten. For all intents and purposes, I may have gotten three solid years of usable experience out of my first 12. I’ve had 5 jobs in the last 10 years - my interview experience.
1. A semi technical interview. No white boarding. I just described my experience and thought process about delivering results. They were a startup and liked my practical experience delivering code.
2. I did a pair programming test where they had a project with failing unit tests and I had to refactor the code to make the tests pass. I think they had a written test with some practical questions and a coding part.
3. By now, my years of experience and practical worthwhile knowledge had finally gotten somewhat in sync. I was applying for senior level roles. They asked technically questions, a whiteboard interview where they wanted me to design a scalable, fault tolerant system and a normalized database system. They quizzed me on my design decisions.
4. A team lead position where the hiring manager asked me about my 90 day plan to create a software development department and to come up with a migration development plan to move them off of an old Access backed system.
5. A white boarding discussion about the company’s current technical issues with scalability, automation, fault tolerance and suggestions about how I would tackle them.
I did have to do a whiteboard coding exercise that consisted of writing a merge sort. I did it, they made an offer but after seeing the interview process, I knew that was a company I would never work for at the position they were interviewing for. They did make me an offer though.
You have to know _a lot_. Programming languages, Tools, Operating Systems, Tests etc. On top of that, specific domain knowledge is required. Unfortunately, my brain forgets and if I work with different technologies, after 1 year I will not start at 0 but definitely neither at 100%.
I consider myself a full stack developer/architect from the web down to (cloud hosted) net ops/Dev ops/development. I can go in with no infrastructure and design a pretty good system at each level. Yes if I am not constantly working on a part of the stack - especially the front end - I do have ramp up time to get at a high level of efficiency. But people do it all of the time.
This is no different than any other high paying profession. You’re expected to know a lot about your field or at least be able to ramp up fast.
After all it's "just" software. Besides yourself, nobody really cares how you solved the problem. Sure, it's quite appealing to think through a complex system, tune it, develop it etc. but often it includes cumbersome work and decisions are made elsewhere.
Most software development involves maintenance of other people’s code. People very much care about how you implement something.
As far as being able to make your own decisions, the secret is working for a small company. But only do that after you gain some real world experience and can learn from others.
Simple. Money, money, money.
In my experience: Software engineering will always be frustrating unless we remove all the intermediate layers of people thats sits between software engineers and the end-users/business. So if you can find such an organisation then probably you will find reason to stay in software engineering. Finding such organization would be really tricky.
I work in such an organisation, albeit a rather small one (~ 60 people). It is absolutely not easy: some people are not cut out for it and would prefer a strict specification and focus on writing the best code, which clashes sometimes with delivering quick-'n-dirty customer value. Other people are just not that good in recognizing the patterns in businesses. I think our end result is better than that of most companies, but at the same time it is much more difficult to manage properly, so I can see why so few organisation take such an integrated approach.
The money is so damn good.
Is it? In France it is just "OK" at best. Guess depends on where you are.
Either be a freelancer, or work for American companies remotely. I do both.
French companies pay freelancers not only more than employees, but they are way more annoying with the later. They just give you a better status for some unfair social reasons.
American companies will generally have more interesting projects and higher budgets. They will pay you more than a French company, while it will still feel that it's cheaper for them.
As a freelancer you can still pay for taxes, social security, etc. and yet double what you would had made. Plus you get flexible hours and you can work from home.
The downside is that you can't suck, be lazy, or sick for too long. You have basically no safety net.
French companies pay freelancers not only more than employees, but they are way more annoying with the later. They just give you a better status for some unfair social reasons.
American companies will generally have more interesting projects and higher budgets. They will pay you more than a French company, while it will still feel that it's cheaper for them.
As a freelancer you can still pay for taxes, social security, etc. and yet double what you would had made. Plus you get flexible hours and you can work from home.
The downside is that you can't suck, be lazy, or sick for too long. You have basically no safety net.
I'm already in France for with a worker visa (CDI). Changing that to a freelancer status (auto entrepreneur) is a huge administrative pain.
In Software Engineering, you don't need to work where you live nor live where you were born/studied. One very good reason.
If you're privelleged enough to not need a visa.
I think they were referring to remote work.
You won't get paid SV FANG money as a remote even more so if your from WP, Developing countries or even the UK / EIRE.
The Uk has been known for ages as a place to get well trained engineers on the cheap.
The Uk has been known for ages as a place to get well trained engineers on the cheap.
[deleted]
In Sweden I would say the best paid programmers get pretty high salaries. It can vary quite a lot though.
In Germany salaries for software developers are also very average
in neighbouring countries the salaries are only lower
> So why should I stay in the software domain ?
Because you are already heavily invested and is part of the current elite of software engineers, probably. If you still like it, why leave it?
Because you are already heavily invested and is part of the current elite of software engineers, probably. If you still like it, why leave it?
>Because you are already heavily invested
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallac...
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallac...
The effort to reward ratio is as good as it gets. Professions with similar or higher reward usually do so only with a lot of effort. Think litigation lawyers or doctors that pull crazy amount of overtime. There's a lot of jobs in the software field that will pull in 6 figures with great conditions and reasonable effort. That's why everyone is fighting each other to enter the field, for better or worse.
And while "everyone can be a software developer" right now because the demand is so high (we're in a middle of a mini-dotcom-boom), it won't always be that way. Expect to see saturation in the next few years. Yes, the self taught person who works their butt off will be able to make it, but it won't be common, or will be limited to entry level positions, which will become more and more competitive. We're already seeing this happening a bit.
And while "everyone can be a software developer" right now because the demand is so high (we're in a middle of a mini-dotcom-boom), it won't always be that way. Expect to see saturation in the next few years. Yes, the self taught person who works their butt off will be able to make it, but it won't be common, or will be limited to entry level positions, which will become more and more competitive. We're already seeing this happening a bit.
I've been hearing about saturation for about 15 years and honestly there are no signs of it, not even close.
Oh, there is. You can have saturation in the field, and employers having trouble finding people, at the same time.
Real world analogy: When I was trying to renovate my place, I had to look for contractors/carpenters. All the good ones are overbooked for 4-6 months out, many only take referrals and won't even talk to you otherwise. At -the same time-, a bunch of contractors I called said they retired or changed field because there was no job and business sucked.
Software engineering is heading a similar way. The barrier for entry for "I know how to build an app" is very, very low. But the "skill ceiling" is very, very high. There's a ton of positions, but when anyone can self teach or do a quick bootcamp and get in, well, there's a lot of competition for these jobs. At the higher end though? There's also a lot of jobs...but competition is non-existent.
Real world analogy: When I was trying to renovate my place, I had to look for contractors/carpenters. All the good ones are overbooked for 4-6 months out, many only take referrals and won't even talk to you otherwise. At -the same time-, a bunch of contractors I called said they retired or changed field because there was no job and business sucked.
Software engineering is heading a similar way. The barrier for entry for "I know how to build an app" is very, very low. But the "skill ceiling" is very, very high. There's a ton of positions, but when anyone can self teach or do a quick bootcamp and get in, well, there's a lot of competition for these jobs. At the higher end though? There's also a lot of jobs...but competition is non-existent.
Some time back I wrote this ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148087 )
I'd be willing to take either side of a debate for "is there a shortage of people who, when given tight specifications for a piece of software (write a function that takes X as input and provides Y as output) that enumerates all of the corner conditions can produce a program in a language that they are familiar with."
At the same time, the "person who can work with the business user on the software, think about the architecture of it, identify the design necessary, come up with the estimate that actually matches the time frame that it will be done in with a reasonable error... and produce software that takes X as input and provides Y as output while being aware of where the edge conditions may exist and ask for clarification on how it should work"... I believe there is a distinct lack of that portion of labor.
Furthermore, there is also a lack of people who are able to move from the first labor pool to the second, and a lack of mentors who have the time and ability to help that group move to the second.
I don't think its incredibly difficult to hire an entry level person as long as one sets the bar low enough and has people within the origination who are capable of providing the design. On the other hand, it is very difficult to find the people who can give the necessary instruction to the entry level people to allow them to become productive within their ability.
As an aside, I also find that within the entry level group... there are a sizable portion that have the attitude of "I learned language X and that was hard enough, I'm going to stick with it and not learn anything else." That X can be found for all languages and none have the monopoly on it. However, it is disconcerting for me to see those individuals... I started out as a C programmer, and then Perl (full stack web - some JavaScript in there) and then Java (enterprise), and then Java stand alone (swing application)... and while I'm still a Java programmer, I can see other languages looming on the horizon. Java will become the COBOL, and while there are still COBOL programmers out there, its not something that one wants to get stuck in for another two or three decades waiting for that last app server to be turned off before they can retire.
----
At the "anything past entry level", I still find that the number of qualified applicants drops off substantially. For entry level, the applicant pool is very, very large. I am now despairing that many of that pool don't have the necessary skills to move beyond following someone else's design.
I'd be willing to take either side of a debate for "is there a shortage of people who, when given tight specifications for a piece of software (write a function that takes X as input and provides Y as output) that enumerates all of the corner conditions can produce a program in a language that they are familiar with."
At the same time, the "person who can work with the business user on the software, think about the architecture of it, identify the design necessary, come up with the estimate that actually matches the time frame that it will be done in with a reasonable error... and produce software that takes X as input and provides Y as output while being aware of where the edge conditions may exist and ask for clarification on how it should work"... I believe there is a distinct lack of that portion of labor.
Furthermore, there is also a lack of people who are able to move from the first labor pool to the second, and a lack of mentors who have the time and ability to help that group move to the second.
I don't think its incredibly difficult to hire an entry level person as long as one sets the bar low enough and has people within the origination who are capable of providing the design. On the other hand, it is very difficult to find the people who can give the necessary instruction to the entry level people to allow them to become productive within their ability.
As an aside, I also find that within the entry level group... there are a sizable portion that have the attitude of "I learned language X and that was hard enough, I'm going to stick with it and not learn anything else." That X can be found for all languages and none have the monopoly on it. However, it is disconcerting for me to see those individuals... I started out as a C programmer, and then Perl (full stack web - some JavaScript in there) and then Java (enterprise), and then Java stand alone (swing application)... and while I'm still a Java programmer, I can see other languages looming on the horizon. Java will become the COBOL, and while there are still COBOL programmers out there, its not something that one wants to get stuck in for another two or three decades waiting for that last app server to be turned off before they can retire.
----
At the "anything past entry level", I still find that the number of qualified applicants drops off substantially. For entry level, the applicant pool is very, very large. I am now despairing that many of that pool don't have the necessary skills to move beyond following someone else's design.
> and while I'm still a Java programmer, I can see other languages looming on the horizon. Java will become the COBOL, and while there are still COBOL programmers out there, its not something that one wants to get stuck in for another two or three decades waiting for that last app server to be turned off before they can retire.
I don't think this will neccessary be the case, Java is far from being in maintenance mode. It looked like it would be some years ago but there now is a lot modernization going on, both inside the language itself and inside the ecosystem. Maybe it might loose its top position, who knows, but I don't see it being practically dead anytime soon.
Sure enough there will definitly be those weired "COBOL like" enterprise things building on top of all of the bad ideas from the early Java days which stay forever and which nobody not already familiar with wants to touch for good reason.
I don't think this will neccessary be the case, Java is far from being in maintenance mode. It looked like it would be some years ago but there now is a lot modernization going on, both inside the language itself and inside the ecosystem. Maybe it might loose its top position, who knows, but I don't see it being practically dead anytime soon.
Sure enough there will definitly be those weired "COBOL like" enterprise things building on top of all of the bad ideas from the early Java days which stay forever and which nobody not already familiar with wants to touch for good reason.
That does strike me as odd back when I was in my second year of work (no degree) - I came in one day and my boss told me ok we have brought a bleeding edge piece of tech that cost 3x my salary.
"Go hook it up to that PDP get it working and go an talk for Brian and work out with him how to use this to digitise the 3d droplet cloud his experiment is producing.
It didn't even come with a cable just a 20 sheet photocopied technical manual.
"Go hook it up to that PDP get it working and go an talk for Brian and work out with him how to use this to digitise the 3d droplet cloud his experiment is producing.
It didn't even come with a cable just a 20 sheet photocopied technical manual.
I was recently speaking with a recruiter who advised me to “prep” for tech interviews. “Read Cracking the Coding Interview”, he said. “Do some programming problems so your skills are fresh”.
I’ve never prepped for a tech interview and I’m never going to read a stupid book that’s supposed to coach me.
What am I prepping for? I’ve been a programmer 10+ years. I’ve had 10+ years of “prep”. Is that “fresh” enough for you?
Tech interviews have gotten way, way out of hand.
I’ve never prepped for a tech interview and I’m never going to read a stupid book that’s supposed to coach me.
What am I prepping for? I’ve been a programmer 10+ years. I’ve had 10+ years of “prep”. Is that “fresh” enough for you?
Tech interviews have gotten way, way out of hand.
After reading Cracking the Coding Interview... I was more than satisfied about getting a job as a "Software Developer" instead of "Software Engineer"... then going home after job, not thinking about job, big O in the shower etc... whats the point of life, if we don't have the time to investigate "this" thing we call living.
I’m in the same boat ... but at this point I try not to feel bitter about it. I feel that if a company gives me an interview like that I’ll just do it - 0 prep usually - and if it doesn’t work out, well I’m probably dodging a bullet because I did learn a lot about their culture right off the bat (and I feel you should be equally skeptical about someone who doesn’t try to gauge your skills in any manner).
For better or worse, this practice will take their company wherever it’s meant to go.
For better or worse, this practice will take their company wherever it’s meant to go.
I had your attitude before, with a similar amount of experience. The industry isn't changing it's practices, so seek out more specialized roles related to your experience. This reduces the white board factor.
tl;dr:
- None of us know everything about every environment, even though we often imagine we do
- If you want a job, and spending a few hours prepping on data structures and algorithms (either to improve your performance, or to verify your performance is in fact perfect) will help your chances of success or your confidence, why not do it?
You might want to consider:
- Just because you don't want to follow the recruiter's advice, it doesn't mean it's a 'stupid book'.
- Although the recruiter mentioned 'programming problems', the problems in the book may test a wider (or just different) range of skills than what you (or I) consider 'programming'
- The fact that you've 'never prepped for a tech interview' may have impacted the set of environments in which you have worked, and it may be hard to know whether you would enjoy working in those places where preparation is 'table stakes' (i.e. necessary but not sufficient) for success.
- Companies that interview in ways that require/expect some preparation might be (intentionally or unintentionally) filtering out candidates who are not willing to do what is required to achieve their aims. (If you're not willing to spend a few hours with a book to increase your chances of landing a great job for the next 2-3 years, then maybe you wouldn't be willing to learn whatever JS library is required to succeed at your next project.)
You and I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. But I know other people with 10+ years of coding experience, and the majority would improve their chances of succeeding at a given interview loop, by preparing using 'cracking the coding interview'.
- None of us know everything about every environment, even though we often imagine we do
- If you want a job, and spending a few hours prepping on data structures and algorithms (either to improve your performance, or to verify your performance is in fact perfect) will help your chances of success or your confidence, why not do it?
You might want to consider:
- Just because you don't want to follow the recruiter's advice, it doesn't mean it's a 'stupid book'.
- Although the recruiter mentioned 'programming problems', the problems in the book may test a wider (or just different) range of skills than what you (or I) consider 'programming'
- The fact that you've 'never prepped for a tech interview' may have impacted the set of environments in which you have worked, and it may be hard to know whether you would enjoy working in those places where preparation is 'table stakes' (i.e. necessary but not sufficient) for success.
- Companies that interview in ways that require/expect some preparation might be (intentionally or unintentionally) filtering out candidates who are not willing to do what is required to achieve their aims. (If you're not willing to spend a few hours with a book to increase your chances of landing a great job for the next 2-3 years, then maybe you wouldn't be willing to learn whatever JS library is required to succeed at your next project.)
You and I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting. But I know other people with 10+ years of coding experience, and the majority would improve their chances of succeeding at a given interview loop, by preparing using 'cracking the coding interview'.
> would improve their chances of succeeding at a given interview loop, by preparing
It seems to me that you're presupposing that "success" equates to ending up with an offer.
I posit that for some professionals, success is actually deciding (ideally mutually) if employment is desirable/beneficial. The decision may well be that it is not, but that would still be a success.
In this latter situation, preparation time might be better spent researching the background of the team on would be joining, the company itself, and technical and cultural environment, in order to ask better questions during the interview, rather than studying so as to achieve what could be, arguably, described as gaming the technical screening portion of the process.
It seems to me that you're presupposing that "success" equates to ending up with an offer.
I posit that for some professionals, success is actually deciding (ideally mutually) if employment is desirable/beneficial. The decision may well be that it is not, but that would still be a success.
In this latter situation, preparation time might be better spent researching the background of the team on would be joining, the company itself, and technical and cultural environment, in order to ask better questions during the interview, rather than studying so as to achieve what could be, arguably, described as gaming the technical screening portion of the process.
devs with 20 yrs experience have to go through whiteboard interviews. thinking that this is an insult is wrongheaded.
hardware jobs pay less. many times, much less.
hardware jobs pay less. many times, much less.
In my experience, a web job can net up to 4x salary vs a much more difficult hardware engineering role. I know because I went form hardware to web and the average compensation is much higher. Additionally, web jobs tend to be less stressful.
Is this really true right now? I have been in hardware before, and found I was curious to try what else was out there, so I got into a business role. Turned out, that sucks worse in some ways, so I had been considering trying to transition back. Barring the challenges with this plan, I saw that hardware at least seemed to be free of the constant churn that seems inherent in software, meaning new languages every 3 years, constant industry change, and the age perception issue, where you aren't seen as valuable after so many years unless you're a superstar.
I had no idea, however, that software paid so much better. Is this really true in general, across the board, or do you mean only for select areas?
But why?
I think, because of smartphones and smart gadgets, the demand for hardware and gadgets has reduced dramatically. A lot of gadget ideas can be built as an app. Plus, most businesses need websites or web apps now so there is much, much more demand in for web engineering.
You are right about phones. I saw this a lot over the past years myself. I started in hardware back in the 80's when it was all big components. Then, with smartphones, it became clear that most little pocket gadgets of the 90's were obsolete. However, doesn't someone still need to make the phones and computers of tomorrow? Aren't those people going to be paid well since there will be fewer of them? I'm not saying it's not true, it just seems odd that software would be compensated so much better than hardware. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Why are you getting a masters degree? Are you doing this while working full time? What is your end goal for a masters degree?
The interview process for software developers is as you write, terribly broken at a lot of companies from the point of view of most developers. I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future and it does not matter what software you have written in the past, you will get the opportunity to prove yourself all over again for the rest of your career.
One possible solution is to work for yourself. This solves some of your issues and introduces a whole different set.
The interview process for software developers is as you write, terribly broken at a lot of companies from the point of view of most developers. I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future and it does not matter what software you have written in the past, you will get the opportunity to prove yourself all over again for the rest of your career.
One possible solution is to work for yourself. This solves some of your issues and introduces a whole different set.
I stay because I love it. Coding is my passion, and I'm grateful every single day to be paid well to do something I enjoy. I'm not entirely convinced that other professions don't suffer from the same negative aspects either (bad management, terrible deadlines, cargo cult-ing, some boring tasks). For me, outside of maybe working in pro audio, I can't imagine doing anything else.
> "For some reason, companies do highly mistrust my skills and degree. Other jobs, equally well paid, do not require this."
I think if other jobs were able to directly test your technical skills in an interview they probably would. I personally hate whiteboard style interviews as well but, having sat on both sides of the interview process over the years, I see a lot of value in seeing people's code. Personally my preference is a take home coding test, but interactive coding is fine too if the problem isn't too tricky. Probably this is because I am self taught and don't have a degree to lean on that colors my opinion so take my words with a grain of salt I guess.
> "For some reason, companies do highly mistrust my skills and degree. Other jobs, equally well paid, do not require this."
I think if other jobs were able to directly test your technical skills in an interview they probably would. I personally hate whiteboard style interviews as well but, having sat on both sides of the interview process over the years, I see a lot of value in seeing people's code. Personally my preference is a take home coding test, but interactive coding is fine too if the problem isn't too tricky. Probably this is because I am self taught and don't have a degree to lean on that colors my opinion so take my words with a grain of salt I guess.
Your second point contradicts your first. You don’t need credentials to do it but you need to know a lot. People with good word of mouth reputations have much better job security (perhaps spanning multiple firms) than most other fields.
The key question is “Do you like the work?”
The key question is “Do you like the work?”
I think there’s also the mistake of assuming having “programming credentials” means you are prepared for every “programming” job. Whereas, in reality, each job is it’s own microcosm of domain knowledge (even if you’re using the same languages/frameworks between jobs!)
So you have the opportunity to ask “Do you like the work?” under many different circumstances.
So you have the opportunity to ask “Do you like the work?” under many different circumstances.
Like EE, the exposure to various Fields is potentially huge. It was my favorite thing about software, after software itself.
With my BSCS, I worked in aerospace, telecommunications, finance focused MoM (we are dated by our buzzwords), manufacturing supply chains, indigent health insurance, auto sales, dark pool trading, and medical device manufacturing.
I'm now out of software because I was a B player, and my freshness date expired.
Now I'm a long distance semi truck driver, and I'm currently sitting in my Kenworth T680 as I write this. It's the ultimate experience if you're a loner.
I miss the money, and the software writing itself, but I've never had a meeting since I started truck driving. I don't miss the development practices churn, or what I call work about work.
I do still automate some parts of my personal administrivia, mostly with python and Bash.
With my BSCS, I worked in aerospace, telecommunications, finance focused MoM (we are dated by our buzzwords), manufacturing supply chains, indigent health insurance, auto sales, dark pool trading, and medical device manufacturing.
I'm now out of software because I was a B player, and my freshness date expired.
Now I'm a long distance semi truck driver, and I'm currently sitting in my Kenworth T680 as I write this. It's the ultimate experience if you're a loner.
I miss the money, and the software writing itself, but I've never had a meeting since I started truck driving. I don't miss the development practices churn, or what I call work about work.
I do still automate some parts of my personal administrivia, mostly with python and Bash.
Could you please shed some light on what made you pursue Truck driving after being a software developer (besides the meetings of course)? Was it out of choice or necessity?
Necessity. After leaving a software QA job without the next job in hand, I had one interview in a year. Blame it on whatever you want, that was my reality.
As for truck driving ... "They were hiring."
EDIT: I do enjoy it, it's a big and beautiful country, and the work is pretty easy.
As for truck driving ... "They were hiring."
EDIT: I do enjoy it, it's a big and beautiful country, and the work is pretty easy.
Now that you’re a truck driver, what are your thoughts on the future of that industry with regards to self driving trucks? E.g. is it something drivers are worried about in your experience?
I've been driving less than 6 months, so my exposure to other drivers is limited, and exposure to other drivers is naturally limited anyway, you just drive.
I think a few drivers are worried about it, and a larger number are dismissive of it.
My opinion is that it's going to happen because it's possible, and because it must.
There just aren't people who are willing to be truck drivers. Shortages on the shelves and rising prices are already happening, because there's more things that need shipping then there are drivers to pull them. it's not just because of Amazon, it's everything.
Side note, if you like the idea of exposure to different fields as a software developer, blockchain is going to be pretty important in trucking, for bills of lading and similar record keeping and tracking.
I think a few drivers are worried about it, and a larger number are dismissive of it.
My opinion is that it's going to happen because it's possible, and because it must.
There just aren't people who are willing to be truck drivers. Shortages on the shelves and rising prices are already happening, because there's more things that need shipping then there are drivers to pull them. it's not just because of Amazon, it's everything.
Side note, if you like the idea of exposure to different fields as a software developer, blockchain is going to be pretty important in trucking, for bills of lading and similar record keeping and tracking.
Software interviewing has become necessarily (though unfortunately) adversarial for two major reasons; a lot of people are lying on their resume, a lot of engineers have inflated self-worth. If you're competent... don't worry, you will break through. But keep in mind, experience in this trade has a lot of value - and companies can only absorb so many people with 0 experience at any given moment in time.
That said, should you change your track from pure EE?
My personal experience in hiring has been that people with pure CS bachelors/masters are usually a worse fit for highly technical roles than those with another STEM degree. I think this is because it is harder to teach yourself electrical engineering than entry level software development.
A average candidate knows how to program. A good candidate knows has deep domain knowledge in something. A great candidate has deep domain knowledge and can turn that into code.
That said, should you change your track from pure EE?
My personal experience in hiring has been that people with pure CS bachelors/masters are usually a worse fit for highly technical roles than those with another STEM degree. I think this is because it is harder to teach yourself electrical engineering than entry level software development.
A average candidate knows how to program. A good candidate knows has deep domain knowledge in something. A great candidate has deep domain knowledge and can turn that into code.
I find writing software to be a very tedious exercise a majority of the time, punctuated by moments of intense joy and concentration. However I still do it because I see it as an indispensable tool for turning my own ideas into reality and its hard to put a price on that. If you're worried about interviews and what not, pick a domain your intensely interested in and let your passion glow during the interviews, I know from exp. that many good employers would rather have a knowledgeable passionate hire than a dev who knows "everything" but couldn't care less about the domain.
The interview process sucks, and it probably isn't much better for other careers. I have friends that have master degrees unable to find jobs with no logical way to explain it. Experience and having a good personality isn't a golden ticket to a job.
You really don't need to know a lot. You choose to know a lot probably because you either feel uncomfortable not knowing the whole picture, or because your just curious. I have meet a ton of great developers that their knowledge base was their language and libraries because that was all they needed to know to be great. One guy I know that hires peoples ask one question in interviews to gauge peoples knowledge "You click the address bar of a browser type in www.google.com and push down enter on the keyboard what happens?". There are some people that give 5 min answer and some that could spend a hour just explaining the keyboard interaction with the operating system across 4 different operating systems for a hour. Find what domain you enjoy and just do it.
Everything is "just" something, and their is no way around having to do cumbersome work and making decisions to get some where doing anything.
You should stay in software because you want to. If you need others to validate a reason for you then you probably should get out while you can. Keep it as a hobby, but the second you start questioning something like this you either need to try something new or go on a camping trip and drop some mind altering drugs so you can find a answer. Maybe do some volunteer work in a third world country.
You really don't need to know a lot. You choose to know a lot probably because you either feel uncomfortable not knowing the whole picture, or because your just curious. I have meet a ton of great developers that their knowledge base was their language and libraries because that was all they needed to know to be great. One guy I know that hires peoples ask one question in interviews to gauge peoples knowledge "You click the address bar of a browser type in www.google.com and push down enter on the keyboard what happens?". There are some people that give 5 min answer and some that could spend a hour just explaining the keyboard interaction with the operating system across 4 different operating systems for a hour. Find what domain you enjoy and just do it.
Everything is "just" something, and their is no way around having to do cumbersome work and making decisions to get some where doing anything.
You should stay in software because you want to. If you need others to validate a reason for you then you probably should get out while you can. Keep it as a hobby, but the second you start questioning something like this you either need to try something new or go on a camping trip and drop some mind altering drugs so you can find a answer. Maybe do some volunteer work in a third world country.
A degree in EE has been a big plus in some teams I worked in, both in terms of getting hired and day to day work.
Be aware of this: 99% of teams/companies out there are not solving quantitative problem. They are throwing chunks of code from stackoverflow at some app. They use every framework, tool, methodology of the year and look for those names on your CV.
Yet, there's a niche where people do data driven development, understand and use statics and mathematical models, and do real engineering like aiming to solve a problem with the minimum amount of complexity and code.
Aim for that. There are teams like this in Google, Amazon, Facebook and other smaller companies. You have to go and hunt for those. Stay away from coder jobs.
Be aware of this: 99% of teams/companies out there are not solving quantitative problem. They are throwing chunks of code from stackoverflow at some app. They use every framework, tool, methodology of the year and look for those names on your CV.
Yet, there's a niche where people do data driven development, understand and use statics and mathematical models, and do real engineering like aiming to solve a problem with the minimum amount of complexity and code.
Aim for that. There are teams like this in Google, Amazon, Facebook and other smaller companies. You have to go and hunt for those. Stay away from coder jobs.
Start your own company; you are probably highly talented and our industry went recently insane, trying to normalize to the lowest denominator. Build a product with high quality and charge a lot of money for it to dysfunctional companies that are in despair and incapable of their own excellence. Most of them are like that these days. Never put all your eggs to a single basket though. Invest all your income above your needs and some safety margin to both stable investments like index funds and to high-risk investments like what blockchain was recently. In ~10 years you should be way better off than almost anyone you know (unless there is some wide-spread societal collapse that can't be ruled out).
To avoid repeating what has already been said, also try to look more at the how and not just the what.
If you’ve got a talent for it, then look at your career in terms of how you can increasingly fulfil that ‘how’.
That could be your own business or a company/vision/mission that really sings to you.
You might get a few bad experiences along the way but they would only serve to remind you of that ‘how’, and give you more resources to do it better.
For me that means blending my passion for proper agile, coaching, and compassion, into my dev workflow such that I will always leave a team or company better than I found it. There have been plenty of situations where I failed to do that but it only empowered me to learn and adapt.
That’s not a yes/no answer, it’s just another perspective.
If you’ve got a talent for it, then look at your career in terms of how you can increasingly fulfil that ‘how’.
That could be your own business or a company/vision/mission that really sings to you.
You might get a few bad experiences along the way but they would only serve to remind you of that ‘how’, and give you more resources to do it better.
For me that means blending my passion for proper agile, coaching, and compassion, into my dev workflow such that I will always leave a team or company better than I found it. There have been plenty of situations where I failed to do that but it only empowered me to learn and adapt.
That’s not a yes/no answer, it’s just another perspective.
I really do like Linux, OpenSource projects, blogs like e.g. hackernews etc. To me it felt like a passion: So much cool stuff I can read about, all accessible only with a computer and an internet connection. However, I recently decided to do my masters but currently have some serious doubts whether I should focus on software or just completely change my track. The problems I have are:
* Everyone can be a "software developer". Even thought I went through a really though and challenging university degree, which I finished distinctly above average, I have to go through whiteboard interviews. This won't change with additional job experience. For some reason, companies do highly mistrust my skills and degree. Other jobs, equally well paid, do not require this.
* You have to know _a lot_. Programming languages, Tools, Operating Systems, Tests etc. On top of that, specific domain knowledge is required. Unfortunately, my brain forgets and if I work with different technologies, after 1 year I will not start at 0 but definitely neither at 100%.
* After all it's "just" software. Besides yourself, nobody really cares how you solved the problem. Sure, it's quite appealing to think through a complex system, tune it, develop it etc. but often it includes cumbersome work and decisions are made elsewhere.
So why should I stay in the software domain ?