| |
| ▲ | CodeMage 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What makes this whole thing worse is the concept of "non-terminal" levels, i.e. levels that you're not allowed to stay at indefinitely, which means that you must either get promoted or fired. I can understand not wanting to let people stay in a junior position forever, but I've seen this taken to a ridiculous extreme, where the ladder starts at a junior level, then goes through intermediate and senior to settle on staff engineer as the first "terminal" position. Someone should explain to the people who dream up these policies that the Peter Principle is not something we should aim for. It's even worse when you combine this with age. I'm nearing 47 years old now and have 26 years of professional experience, and I'm not just tired, but exhausted by the relentless push to make me go higher up on the ladder. Let me settle down where I'm at my most competent and let me build shit instead of going to interminable meetings to figure out what we want to build and who should be responsible for it. I'm old enough to remember the time when managers were at least expected to be more useful in that regard. | | |
| ▲ | lokar 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, the terminal level, whatever the title (they are just words) need to be the point at which you can handle moderately complex (multi-week) tasks with no supervision. And honestly, this will depend on the environment and kind of work being done. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent [-] | | If that's what you're looking for you can find it in academia. Universities have no problem paying people to stay around forever without promotion. Of course the pay won't be great, but the benefits are decent, PTO is usually excellent, and the work environment usually very low stress. | | |
| ▲ | CodeMage 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | FWIW, I'm starting to seriously consider this as a strategy that will allow me to get to retirement without completely messing up my health due to stress and burnout. That said, there's something deeply wrong with our industry if that's the way we expect things to work. I never felt that teaching was my calling, but I might end up being forced into it anyway and taking up a job that someone with proper passion and vocation could fill. Why? Because my own industry doesn't understand that unlimited growth is not sustainable. For that matter, "growth" is not the right word, either. We're all being told that scaling the ladder is the same thing as growing and developing, but it's not. | | |
| ▲ | lokar 4 days ago | parent [-] | | But the point of the rule is that unlimited growth is not expected. There is a fairly clear point you need to get to, and then you can stay put if you like. | | |
| ▲ | CodeMage 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, and I agree with that. But my reply was to a comment that seemed to dispute that idea and imply that if you wanted to stop growing at some point, then you should shift to academia. That said, there is an expectation of unlimited growth and it comes from a different source: ageism. At my age, the implicit expectation is that I will apply for a staff or even principal role. Applying for a "merely" senior role often rings alarm bells. That trend -- and certain others -- are what's making me consider taking up teaching instead. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lokar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are we talking about the same thing? The point of the terminal level rule is that there is a point, bellow which you are not actually contributing all that much more in output then it takes to supervise and mentor you. At some point you need to be clearly net positive. This generally means you can mostly operate on your own. If it becomes clear you won't make it to that level, then something is wrong. Either you are not capable, or not willing to make the effort, or something else. Regardless, you get forced out. | |
| ▲ | adobesubmarine 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In my experience, people who say this kind of thing about either industry or academia have usually worked in one, but not both. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | theshrike79 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've had calls with Principal Architects who couldn't code themselves out of a wet paper bag. And according to the company experience chart, they should've been a "thought leader" and "able to instruct senior engineers" My title? Backend Programmer (20 years of experience). Our unit didn't care about titles because there was a "budget" for title upgrades per business unit and guess which team grabbed all of them =) | | |
| ▲ | geodel 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Its an epidemic all over in IT departments and s/w industry in general. Nowadays people whose sum total knowledge would be managing some packaged Oracle/SAP software installation are holding title of CTO/SVP/EVP of software organization with thousands of developers. Since they bring a certain cluelessness and ignorance as honor to whole orgs actual technical expertise among engineers could be detriment to one's jobs and career. | |
| ▲ | rglynn 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How many civil engineers or architects know how to put up scaffolding or lay bricks? That was a little tongue in cheek, but I am genuinely curious what you think the correct approach is? I have seen many teams that do need to have someone overseeing the overall architecture, even if that person isn't writing the code line-by-line. If you have that capacity baked into "Backend Programmer", then great, but not every team is the same. Is there something inherently wrong with an "architect" who hasn't written code in a decade but is instructing seniors? One might believe that the answer is self-evident, however, I would argue that the organisational structures we see in the world (functional or otherwise) do not bear this out. | |
| ▲ | tguvot 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | i am principle architect. last time i wrote code for production was more than 10 years ago. i never touched half of languages that are used in our system in last week I resolved a few legal/regulatory problems that could have cost company tens of millions of dollars in fines/direct spend/resources and prevented few backend teams from rolling out functionality that could have negative impact on stability/security/performance. I did offer them alternative ways to implement whatever they needed and they accepted it |
| |
| ▲ | xnx 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > IMO tech suffers pretty horrible title inflation It began with "software engineer" | | |
| ▲ | jmpeax 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Don't get me started on "software architect". | | |
| ▲ | tremon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | On classic big waterfall projects, you can find actual architects. Those are the ones drafting interfaces and delineating components/teams before the first source file is even committed. | | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even "code monkey" is generous. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 9rx 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you reach "senior" after only two years and "principle" after 5, what is left for the next 20 years? There is nothing left. Not everyone puts in the same dedication towards the craft, of course. It very well might take someone 30 years to reach "principle" (and maybe even never). But 5 years to have "seen it all" is more than reasonable for someone who has a keen interest in what they are doing. It is not like a job dependent on the season, where you only get one each year. In computing, you can see many different scenarios play out in milliseconds. It doesn't need years to go from no experience to having "seen it all". That is why many in this industry seek management roles as a next step. It opens a new place to find scenarios one has never seen before; to get the start the process all over again. | | |
| ▲ | Yoric 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Er... I've been programming since I was 7 and I'm old enough to remember the previous AI summer. Somewhere along the way, I've had impact on a few technologies you have heard of, I've coded at almost all levels from (some very specialized) hardware to Prolog, Idris and Coq/Rocq, with large doses of mainstream languages in-between, and I don't think I'll ever be close to having seen in all. If anyone tells me that they've seen it all in 5 years, I'm going to suspect them of not paying attention. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The scare quotes are significant. Obviously nobody can ever see it all as taken in its most literal sense. But one can start to see enough that they can recognize the patterns. If your job is dependent on the weather, one year might be rainy, one year might be drought, one year might be a flood, etc. You need to see them to understand them. But eventually you don't have to need to see the year where it is exceptionally rainy, but not to the point of flood, to be able to make good decisions around it. You can take what you learned in the earlier not-quite-so rainy year and what you learned during the flood year and extrapolate from that what the exceptionally rainy year entails. That is what levels up someone. Much the same is true in software. For example, once you write a (well-written) automated test in Javascript and perhaps create something in Typescript, you also have a pretty good understanding of what Rocq is trying to do well enough to determine when it would be appropriate for you to use. It would no doubt take much, much longer to understand all of its minutia, but it is not knowledge of intimate details that "senior", "principle", etc. is looking for. It is about being able to draw on past experience to make well-reasoned choices going forward. | | |
| ▲ | Yoric 4 days ago | parent [-] | | In my experience, not really, no. You need a very different mindset to write in JS (or TS), in Rust, in Rocq, in Esterel or on a Quantum Computer. You need a very different mindset when coding tools that will be deployed on embedded devices, on user's desktops, in the Linux kernel, on a web backend or in a compiler. You need a very different mindset when dealing with open-source enthusiasts, untrusted users, defense contractors. You might be able to have "seen it all" in a tiny corner of tech, but if you stop there, I read it as meaning that you don't have enough curiosity to leave your comfort zone. It's fine, you don't really have to if you don't want to. | | |
| ▲ | 9rx 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > You need a very different mindset to write in JS (or TS), in Rust, in Rocq, in Esterel or on a Quantum Computer. "Senior", "principle", etc. are not about your ability to write. They speak to one's capacity to make decisions. A "junior" has absolutely no clue when to use JS, Rust, or Rocq, or if code should be written at all. But someone who has written (well-written) tests in JS, and maybe written some types in Typescript, now has some concept of verification and can start to recognize some of the tradeoffs in the different approaches. With that past experience in hand, they can begin to consider if the new project in front of them needs Rocq, Dafny, or if Javascript will do. Couple that with other types of experiences to draw from and you can move beyond being considered a "junior". > You might be able to have "seen it all" in a tiny corner of tech Of course there being a corner of some sort is a given. We already talked about management being a different corner, for example. Having absolutely no experience designing a PCB is not going to keep you a "junior" at a place developing CRUD web apps. Obviously nobody is talking about "seeing it all" as being about everything in the entire universe. There aren't that many different patterns, really, though. As the terms are used, you absolutely can "see it all", and when you don't have to wait around for the season to return next year, you can "see it all" quite quickly. | | |
| ▲ | andrewaylett 3 days ago | parent [-] | | In my experience, levels are more a question of delivery and trust than of technical skill. If a Senior is off down a rabbit hole, that's them doing their job. It's almost a defining feature of the level down (SE2, or local equivalent) that if they're off down a rabbit hole then something's probably gone wrong somewhere: if you could trust their judgement, they'd be a senior already. (Yes, that's circular and overly reductive, don't take it too literally) Where I've worked, "senior" has also meant being a final authority: more junior folk will come to you with questions about your team's codebases, and more senior folk will too. You might not have anyone else to ask that kind of question of. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | andrewaylett 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Similarly. I have over 20 years of professional experience. I've worked on embedded systems, and with mainframes. I've done (amongst other things) kernel development, compiler (& RTL) development, line-of-business, mobile, server, and web. Code I've written has a MAU on the order of 1% of humanity. Ask me about being a "full stack" developer :). I've seen a lot. But the more I see, the more I find to see. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jghn 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The important thing here is for people to understand that at best titles only indicate relative rank within a company. And even then that's tenuous. Titles are effectively meaningless when comparing outside of a company. | | |
| ▲ | lokar 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You get (finite) periods where several large / influential companies have a reasonably high level of rigor for their own levels, and there is a pretty stable mapping between the companies. One such period seems to have ended sometime around the start of Covid, or a bit before. | | |
|
|
