I'm going to maintain that employers should look beyond a cover letter and see if the applicant's past experience indicates that they're actually relevant to the role.
> 50 of them can point to having reverse engineered our object-model in high school, why does your resume asking "what is it that you guys do again?" merit a second look.
That's an unfair comparison. One indicates, presumably, direct technical experience with your product.
Between engineer A, who has X years of relevant experience and no cover letter, versus engineer B who has Y years of irrelevant experience, but an awesome cover letter, who are you going to choose?
> But if you're random dev -- well you need to prove you're not JUST a random dev.
That's precisely what my resume does. A flattering cover letter only serves to demonstrate my B.S. skills.
Now, I'll admit that I can certainly write a cover letter which is technically relevant. I will highlight my skills in particular areas named by the job listing.
However, it's been my experience that HR looks for utter bullshit on the resume, and manager types want to hear how awesome their company is. The funny thing is, I haven't heard of most tech companies, and most tech companies have pretty bland websites which are just marketing tools and don't tell me anything relevant to working at a company as a software engineer.
I dunno, I'm wildly jaded by both sides. I openly admit that I have a bug up my ass about H.R. because I've had too many problems with them on both sides: trying to weed me out for B.S. reasons (e.g. "would you say computers are more of a job, or a hobby?"), and preventing me from interviewing qualified candidates, while sending me godawful douchebags who can't even write a for loop.