11–20 of 97 posts
There are downsides to this. The early parts of my resume read like a list of major software project disasters of the 1990s. Among other things, I worked on Taligent OS and WorkplaceOS. (Never heard of them? That's my point.) As a result of chasing interesting problems (and a stint as a university sysadmin), my salary history led me to be significantly underpaid for most of my career.
There are downsides to this. The early parts of my resume read like a list of major software project disasters of the 1990s. Among other things, I worked on Taligent OS and WorkplaceOS. (Never heard of them? That's my point.) As a result of chasing interesting problems (and a stint as a university sysadmin), my salary history led me to be significantly underpaid for most of my career.
For anyone else wondering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_OS
> With protracted development spanning four years and $2 billion (or 0.6% of IBM's revenue for that period), the project suffered development hell characterized by empire building, feature creep, and the second-system effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author makes it sound as if "interesting" tech only exists for the sake of being interesting, but interesting tech becomes interesting because it (purports to be) a better way of solving problems than whatever the old way was. I'm old enough to have worked on Cobol at one point, and Cobol is "boring" but it's also bad, because it was designed around the constraints that existed at the time it was created (as was…
> but interesting tech becomes interesting because it (purports to be) a better way of solving problems than whatever the old way was. You would think so, but this is wrong for the same reason that "the most popular product is probably the best product" is wrong. Quality doesn't determine who wins. It's a factor but not the factor. In the case of programming languages in particular, tribalism, new-and-shiny syndrome,…
Want to work on interesting problems? Build software for doctors' offices and medical groups! Help lawyers crawl out of their low-tech hole! Work on software to revolutionize public classrooms! Why work on interesting tech when you could throw yourself at intractable problems that we never get any closer to solving?
Now the heart of that is 5 lines of python. It could be written by anyone after a days "starting from zero" coding experience.
But actually solving that in real world is a mess of just trying to access the data - it's her data and she only wants to see her bits. But the level of effort is ridiculous.
Anyway my point is that solving problems like software for doctor's offices is not the point - that's just building another silo. A doctor who has (secure) access to a industry wide common open data layer can do all the work to run their office themselves.
In short we are trying to solve the wrong problem - usually because proprietary code is not a profitable as proprietary data
I do both. Shall I be ostracized?
Just kidding. We all want to know what you're working on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but interesting tech becomes interesting because it (purports to be) a better way of solving problems than whatever the old way was. You would think so, but this is wrong for the same reason that "the most popular product is probably the best product" is wrong. Quality doesn't determine who wins. It's a factor but not the factor. In the case of programming languages in particular, tribalism, new-and-shiny syndrome,…
Well, "most popular" is an objective category, whereas "interesting" is not, so it's really up to the individual to determine what is and isn't interesting.
True. The claim I'm making is that what people think is "interesting" is usually (ofc not always) determined by the factors I mentioned, rather than being informed by deep experience with and knowledge of the relevant "prior art".
That is, the new framework or database seems "interesting" to you (the general you) because there are so many articles on HN about it, everyone is talking about, Facebook is using it, etc. Not because you are familiar with similar databases in this space, have specific complaints about them based on experience, and know that this new database has specific features purporting to address them, etc.
... but if you can't work on an interesting problem (where you get a cut of the revenue to solve it) then please, make sure to work on the best possible tech stack, ie, the one the company you want to jump ship to already uses.
The author makes it sound as if "interesting" tech only exists for the sake of being interesting, but interesting tech becomes interesting because it (purports to be) a better way of solving problems than whatever the old way was. I'm old enough to have worked on Cobol at one point, and Cobol is "boring" but it's also bad, because it was designed around the constraints that existed at the time it was created (as was…
So, how much money would 'they' have to offer you to go back to working on Cobol.
they meaning a hypothetical company that says they can't find any Cobol programmers.
Want to work on interesting problems? Build software for doctors' offices and medical groups! Help lawyers crawl out of their low-tech hole! Work on software to revolutionize public classrooms! Why work on interesting tech when you could throw yourself at intractable problems that we never get any closer to solving?
Or NASA when Lee Deforest claimed flight to the moon was impossible "regardless of all future advances."
Or when Einstein claimed ""There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable."
Etc. etc.
As someone who has spent their entire career working on interesting problems using boring technology, and now work on an interesting problem using interesting technology, I can only recommend the latter.
There are downsides to this. The early parts of my resume read like a list of major software project disasters of the 1990s. Among other things, I worked on Taligent OS and WorkplaceOS. (Never heard of them? That's my point.) As a result of chasing interesting problems (and a stint as a university sysadmin), my salary history led me to be significantly underpaid for most of my career.
I feel like this misses the point of the article. The author claims its important to enjoy what you're working on. They make no claims that doing so is a way to maximize your salary.
I know tech gets paid well now but that wasn't always the case. Decades ago people went into medicine or law or finance if they wanted to optimize for pay and prestige. Only relatively recently has tech joined that list.