I have a theory that the churn in technology is by design. If a new paradigm, new language, new framework comes out every so many years, it allows the tech sector to always want to hire new graduates for lower salaries. It gives a thin veneer of we want to always hire the person who has X when really they just do not want to hire someone with 10 years of experience in tech but who may not have picked up X yet.

I do not think it is the only reason. The world is complex, but I do think it factors into why software is not treated like other engineering fields.

▲

jemmyw 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem with that is that it would require a huge amount of coordination for it to be by design. I think it's better to look on it as systemic. Which isn't to say there aren't malign forces contributing.

▲

hackthemack 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. Perhaps, "by design" is not the correct phrasing. Many decisions and effects go through a multi weighted graph of complexity (sort of like machine learning).

▲

tra3 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed. How does that saying go? Don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity?

On the other hand Microsoft and taceboook did collude to keep salaries low. So who knows.

	▲	hackthemack 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Anyone in tech should read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... It was more tech companies in collusion than many people realize. 1) Apple and Google, (2) Apple and Adobe, (3) Apple and Pixar, (4) Google and Intel, (5) Google and Intuit, and (6) Lucasfilm and Pixar. It was settled out of court. One of the plaintiffs was very vocal that the settlement was a travesty of justice. The companies paid less in the settlement than the amount they saved by colluding to keep wages down. https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/06/19/judge-questions-settl...

▲

SoftTalker 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Constantly rewriting the same stuff in endless cycles of new frameworks and languages gives an artificial sense of productivity and justifies its own existence.

If we took the same approach to other engineering, we'd be constantly tearing down houses and rebuilding them just because we have better nails now. It sure would keep a lot of builders employed though.

▲

pietervdvn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We do take down a lot of old buildings (or renovate them thoroughly) cause the old buildings contain asbestos, are not properly isolated, ...

▲

Hemospectrum 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If we took the same approach to other engineering, we'd be constantly tearing down houses and rebuilding them just because we have better nails now. It sure would keep a lot of builders employed though.

This is almost exactly what happens in some countries.

▲

bdangubic 5 hours ago | parent [-]

which one(s)?

	▲	Gigachad 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Pretty common in Australia. Theres heritage laws to try to prevent replacing all the old buildings, but often they are so undesirable the owner just leaves them vacant until trespassers manage to burn it down.

▲

hackthemack 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree. But, I think the execs just say, "How can we get the most bang for our buck? If we use X, Y, Z technologies, that are the new hotness, then we will get all the new hordes of hires out there, which will make them happy, and has the added benefit of paying them less"