Live data from Hacker News

Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

chrisbehan.ca

161–170 of 238 posts

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#161
post #116

Its shocking to me how people don't get bored of rehashing this same, tired opinion over and over and over again and discussing it with hundreds of comments. There is a blog post like this every other day on the front page of HN and it always generates the exact same discussion.

I have said this before: it's group therapy for entitled devs that feel they're entitled to oversized salaries just because they have tenure. Young grads accept the process as is. People that are either happy with their comp or comfortable putting in the work do not lament the process - they just accept it and proceed. Only devs that have been doing it a while, whose salaries have plateaued, that either never learned…

> Only devs that have been doing it a while, whose salaries have plateaued, that either never learned data structures or can't muster the will to review, bemoan the LC grind.

As someone who mostly agrees with you, I still bemoan the LC grind. This is mostly because I think the software market has grown to the point where there’s a distinct market for “plumbers” vs “engineers”. I consider myself a “plumber” who understands how to piece together various frameworks and languages in the most efficient matter, but “engineer are the one who actually invent the new frameworks and who need to actually understand DSA to accomplish their jobs. It feels like distinct skills since I’ve tackled what I consider engineering problems multiple times and failed but I keep getting rewarded with higher and higher salaries for doing what I consider plumbing.

Unfortunately there seems to be an ego component and no company will admit that they need software “plumbers” more than they need software “engineers” or it makes them/their employees look bad.

I just wish I could be ranked and rewarded off my “plumbing” skills and only ranked on my “engineering” skills if I was looking for a career change

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding. I think it's entirely possible to memorize algorithms superficially. These types of interviews are selecting for exactly the type of person that is good at that rote memorization, and are otherwise selecting for a very narrow type of skills…

Quoted post unavailable.

Well, that's an appeal to authority. It also assumes the companies wouldn't be successful with a different hiring approach. In reality the issue is way too complicated to really break down. These companies operate at a large scale and went through rapid growth spurts, and what they believed was a great way to hire was also an implicit tradeoff they were making for the sake of growth.

I'm sure the companies themselves understand that much, and understand a variety of the tradeoffs involved with the way they hire. What they might not understand is that they are at the exploitation stage of their lifespans. There's an entropy-like process as a company matures and cycles through its workforce which leads it to becoming highly specialized.

My bet is these companies don't understand the various ways in which they're limited, and therefore the ways in which they're limited in filtering candidates. And even if they did, they couldn't really hire any other way now even if they wanted to because they don't have the internal diversity for it, that possibility has long since closed on them.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#163
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is completely wrong. Not needing to code Floyd–Warshall on the job is not equal to "high-level apis and glue code". You can totally recognize the opportunity for the correct data structure or algorithm despite not having them all in your head all the time. That's exactly what a good software engineer does. But if you think you can code up any algorithm in any domain on the fly I'm sure I can find some…

Quoted post unavailable.

> i don't think you understand just how out of touch this is because not being able to implement floyd-warshall, which is literally 3 for loops, and still remaining employed as a software dev, is absolutely 100% without a doubt "i'm a code monkey" territory.

Just so I understand where you’re coming from, are you not ok with your business collapsing due to lack of workers or are you a manager at Amazon, Team Bondi of LA Noir fame, or in the general retail industry?

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From friends and acquaintances in other industries with similar income distributions, "knock out 4-to-6 programming problems in a short amount of time" is one of the least-arbitrary and most accessible ways to jump from one group to the more highly paid one. Not to mention that if you can knock out those problems, you may not even be required to have a degree or other formal credentials. That's not even getting into…

>least-arbitrary and most accessible ways to jump from one group to the more highly paid one. exactly . i mean like try to apply to IB at a BB and see if anyone even skims your resume without an ivy+ on it. they can't fathom how good they have it because they've never done anything else (which is, of course, what breeds entitlement).

Do people get a FAANG interview with no recognizable credentials? Surely they have to sift the CVs somehow?

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Well, that's an appeal to authority. It also assumes the companies wouldn't be successful with a different hiring approach. In reality the issue is way too complicated to really break down. These companies operate at a large scale and went through rapid growth spurts, and what they believed was a great way to hire was also an implicit tradeoff they were making for the sake of growth. I'm sure the companies themselves…

No post body was provided.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#166
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> i don't think you understand just how out of touch this is because not being able to implement floyd-warshall, which is literally 3 for loops, and still remaining employed as a software dev, is absolutely 100% without a doubt "i'm a code monkey" territory. Just so I understand where you’re coming from, are you not ok with your business collapsing due to lack of workers or are you a manager at Amazon, Team Bondi of…

No post body was provided.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>least-arbitrary and most accessible ways to jump from one group to the more highly paid one. exactly . i mean like try to apply to IB at a BB and see if anyone even skims your resume without an ivy+ on it. they can't fathom how good they have it because they've never done anything else (which is, of course, what breeds entitlement).

Do people get a FAANG interview with no recognizable credentials? Surely they have to sift the CVs somehow?

For the F in that list, at least, definitely. Though that was because they used a different metric to sift/choose me for an interview (and a decade of experience) despite my lack of tertiary education.

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#168
post #116

Its shocking to me how people don't get bored of rehashing this same, tired opinion over and over and over again and discussing it with hundreds of comments. There is a blog post like this every other day on the front page of HN and it always generates the exact same discussion.

I have said this before: it's group therapy for entitled devs that feel they're entitled to oversized salaries just because they have tenure. Young grads accept the process as is. People that are either happy with their comp or comfortable putting in the work do not lament the process - they just accept it and proceed. Only devs that have been doing it a while, whose salaries have plateaued, that either never learned…

When the status quo is objectively stupid, it is right and just to complain about it. In real life, the ones who will do so are mostly just the ones who it hurts. So what do you want to happen here, if it's not just for devs to shut up about the insanity that's making them miserable?

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#169
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There ya go: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_78_0/libs/graph/doc/topolog...

Quoted post unavailable.

Hi! Please refer to the HN guidelines, especially the following section:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

You can find the guidelines here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Green Lumber Fallacy in Software Engineering

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have said this before: it's group therapy for entitled devs that feel they're entitled to oversized salaries just because they have tenure. Young grads accept the process as is. People that are either happy with their comp or comfortable putting in the work do not lament the process - they just accept it and proceed. Only devs that have been doing it a while, whose salaries have plateaued, that either never learned…

When the status quo is objectively stupid, it is right and just to complain about it. In real life, the ones who will do so are mostly just the ones who it hurts. So what do you want to happen here, if it's not just for devs to shut up about the insanity that's making them miserable?

i have no clue what you're saying

>In real life, the ones who will do so are mostly just the ones who it hurts.

you think people grinding LC that make it through are hurt by the process?

>the insanity that's making them miserable

as far as i can tell, sloth, avarice, and greed are making devs miserable (not some bogeyman called LC).

Post reply on HN