191–200 of 265 posts
I can see why a lot of people working in tech will focus weekend/break energy on side projects (woodworking; solo sports; playing in a band) where exquisite craft is everything.
In addition to knowing which bucket your salary comes from, I think it is also useful to know how your organization values building software. Because this affects your career just as much. * Is your company selling software development hours (consulting)? I'm this car you'll be valued for client relations skills and the ability to bang out acceptable software. * Is your company selling a software product (product com…
> you'll never be the star of the show. This is far too kind. If you work eg for a hardware manufacturer, not only won’t you be the star, but good luck getting any respect. You are a cost. One they wish they didn’t have to pay. Delivering on time and under budget doesn’t put you on their radar, it takes you off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this. first company is good for starters to get to know others. third should be avoided if you want to stay in software and not transition to management. You will always be seen as a necessary evil, your problems not understood while others working on core products will be perceived as an asset. second one is the one to make a career in software dev.
I actually had a pretty good time at a third-category place. When you're writing software for a non-tech company, it means your customers are very close - often in the same building, working at the same time. You can watch them use the software, hear complaints in real time, and push solutions very fast. In my case, I might've been lucky, though. One of the co-founders had a CS degree and deeply valued the productivi…
This. A mentor told me, “[As a software developer], never work for a company with a CEO who has never pushed code to production.”
I think you miss some good places to work by following that advice, but you avoid a ton that are worth avoiding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't become any less nonsencial just because some business leaders who are still stuck in 1980s believe in it. Both profit centers and cost centers are supposed to increase profit, otherwise you wouldn't hire those people. If a department doesn't drive profit, then just axe it and stop wasting money on it. If you can't [1], then it actually drives profit, you just have no idea how. The fact that you can't set p…
> It doesn't become any less nonsencial just because some business leaders who are still stuck in 1980s believe in it. Of course it does. Whatever your business leaders believe is reality in that company. It makes no difference what you or the outside world believe. You're either OK with it, or you need to get out ASAP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't become any less nonsencial just because some business leaders who are still stuck in 1980s believe in it. Of course it does. Whatever your business leaders believe is reality in that company. It makes no difference what you or the outside world believe. You're either OK with it, or you need to get out ASAP.
"Business leaders" are almost universally short-sighted, narrow-minded parasites focused on trying to fatten up their own division so they can suck more of its blood for 2 or 3 years before the next Musical Chairs game when they'll compete with all the other psychopathic mouth-breathers for the best seat, regardless of whether they know a damn thing about whatever division or company they end up in and subsequently p…
I do believe there are still organizations (or at least teams within) that have not been taken over by the parasites you describe. It takes hard work and a lot of looking, but they can be found.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree - It depends on your career aspirations, your skillset, the company, and the type of software you like making. If you are a great communicator and have a great ability to just 'get stuff done', you might be a superstar in 1 & 3, and you might find working in bullet point two highly frustrating. With number 2 you are more likely to be working on a tiny part of a larger application. My brother went from bash…
I would also add career longevity and security. I work at a number 3, I wrote and maintain all the logistics stuff. Every product they sell goes through my code to package parts, put it together and get it out the door. Average time working here is measured in decades not years. It would take a new person roughly a year to figure out what's going on. It's incredibly complicated cash cow that complies with a slew of n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To simplify, you always always always want to be working in bullet point 2, if at all possible. In the other two, you are a cost to be minimized or eliminated. Only if you are working on one of the companies core products are you an asset bringing revenue into the company.
Actually #1 is my favorite, as I'm better at technical sales and rapid prototyping than I am at slow, FAANG style politicking, planning, risk mitigation and eventual development. I've done both at various points in my career and consistently make about ~twice as much money running my own consultancy, not to mention I'm so much happier in that environment.
Many are judgmental (even within this thread) of some companies not "valuing" software engineering. It's naive to compare social media companies that are making 70% topline margins to auto or airlines companies that are making ~ 15-20% . Of course one industry can hire more engineers, pay them better, give them more swag & benefits.
Even within companies, some product lines and functions will be receiving long term investment. Some product lines may be higher margin than others. There will be a big difference in the money available for software products depending on the budget.
I encourage engineers to consider their business' finances when thinking about their job. The company is not a charity or a church -- it's a business with cash flow, revenue & a long term strategy that all has to be balanced with the cost of building the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I chose to make a career out of #3, specifically logistics. I know how stuff gets from vendor to customer. This isn’t something you can buy out of a box. It’s usually heavily customized and made out of multiple systems were never design to work together. Every company does this differently. I enjoy this. I’m good at thinking through whole systems across a company’s many departments. This requires knowledge of interna…
Brother
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this. first company is good for starters to get to know others. third should be avoided if you want to stay in software and not transition to management. You will always be seen as a necessary evil, your problems not understood while others working on core products will be perceived as an asset. second one is the one to make a career in software dev.
> second one is the one to make a career in software dev. Your comment and a dozen others make this out to be so black and white. If this is true then why am I finding it so difficult to make a career out of these situations. I find it impossible to identify companies in this category that are good to work for. Does anyone have any heuristics, or should I keep bouncing from one to the next until I get lucky?