121–127 of 127 posts
Actually senior engineers are out there, for sure. They are, of course, more unusual as candidates and way more expensive.
The whole mapper vs packer thing… meh.
Any article that splits people into two groups and says one group cannot inherently be good at something immediately puts me off, sorry.
So you are saying there are those who split people into two groups and those two do not, and the first group is inherently bad at writing articles?
Starting in 2015:
* Intern - 7 months
* Full stack dev - 13 months
* CTO - 7 years
* CTO - 2 years
* Co-founder - 2 years
The irony of a "CTO" with not even 2 years as a developer complaining about the bar for senior developers is incredible.
You know what bar needs raising? The bar for publishing opinions. Why does a software developer feel qualified to publish their thoughts on something which is far more in the domain of psychology and social science? We barely trust those guys to get it right. Staggering amount of hubris to think that after 2 years of cutting code and starting their own side hustle, they can make blanket statements like this article does.
I had in my own mind it was 10+ years.
The bar seems to have been lowered.
In my experience, people don't learn much from reading books without being able to discuss the content of those books with other people. Indeed if you are discussing your work with your colleagues (and vice versa) — and specifically if you are asking probing questions, challenging assumptions, and asking for clarification as your own mental models fail you — you may not even need to read these books. You will be inculcating a culture that helps counteract all of the behaviors and habits being lamented in this article, and you very well may be teaching (or learning) the concepts within the books.
If you wanna check all my content, check https://sibelius.github.io/zettelkasten/
Thanks for the feedback
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as if computers were found in nature and we were trying to 'reverse engineer' how they are made; which is ridiculous! Computer Science is a branch of pure math, and arguably pure math is found in nature and we're just reverse engineering its laws.
Perhaps the fundamental logic behind pure math is "real" in the sense that it's "found in nature" (whatever that means, I don't see how we would prove that), and we're only applying this real thing to models that we've completely made up. e.g., modus ponens is real, but a Turing Machine is not. We can reason about it logically but we didn't discover it, we made it up. Maybe the same can be said about numbers.
If that's not a proof of its "realness", then I don't know what possibly could be.