Hacker News Reader

I got fairly proficient in RoR some years ago. In that I understood most of the magic and was thinking on what is the best ways to design the program for readability / maintainability.

Then I got good at Java + Spring

Then I got good at React + Redux

Now I gotta get good at Python + Django and the damn magic it does.

Next I gotta get good at Scala.

It is frustrating. And I feel that had I spent 10 years in any of those I could really make amazing things in each one. But instead I feel like a generalist. Jack of all trades.

And that's just the last 5 years. Before that was dozens of java frameworks, knowing differences between 4 different databases and wielding sql like a master, and more.

The worst parts are:

- Front-end engineers are looked down upon while I LOVE coding in React + Redux + ES6js. Wish it was TypeScript.

- React changes damn near daily.

- I really want to deeeeeeep dive in a tech but I feel lots of FOMO that if I don't study a hot new tech I'm screwed. (Except Vue. Vue is the same paradigm as Backbone / Ember)

- I have a kid, time is limited to learn new languages.

IMO You don't need to specialize on a language or famework, but a problem domain, either technical (eg distributed systems, machine learning) or not (manufacturing, video, etc).

It's better to be a good programmer that's deeply experienced in a domain, then a great scala developer that doesn't understand the domains he's working in.

I'm more in the distributed space so I know elixir and scala very well with actor model and distributed coordination tools in my toolbelt. I'm not the best scala engineer but I can get shit done and it will be correct and work through all of the pathological conditions because I've seen a lot in this area. If you asked me to build a webpage I'd fall apart but I'm good at that specialization and have all of the tools I need to work with the technology I know today, and to build on to learn whatever technology is needed tomorrow (eg I've been working with elixir for a year but I'm extremely proficient at it because of my 6 years of akka experience)

A fair point. At this point picking up front-end technologies is a thing I can fairly easily to. React was definitely hard because it was a different paradigm, but once I got over the hump, I'm solving the same problems as before.

I promise you. If you ignore the churn and learn the fundamentals, your skills will have an order of magnitude longer shelf life.

If you know js and web standards then anything on the frontend is just a new application of the same ideas. If you know a bit of networking and a bit of operating systems then web development in python/django/Scala are all just interesting new ways to say basically the same thing.

If you know the specs then you don't need to find out about technology by following 100 different blogs.

Occasionally there will be new fundamentals to learn but you'll be ready because you won't have a backlog of relearning framework X's new way of saying "hello, world".

I'm a games engine programmer. I pretty much only know VS and C++, plus some bits of C# for an occasional tool. I feel like what you described is only applicable to Web programmers - my coworker has been at the same company for the last 26 years and he only knows assembly, C and C++, and uses windows batch for scripting. No need to learn anything else - that's enough to build the latest AAA games.

Ha, you're right about web engineering. But how available are jobs like yours? Because the guys that were doing them 20 years ago are still doing them today.

That sounds great.

JCL, 360/370 ASM, COBOL.

They were still teaching this shit at my school in the 90s. Encouraged you to take COBOL II because "there's so much old code around you'll always have a job" (left out the part about a job you'd rather kill yourself at).

Peter Gibbons was updating code for the Year 2000 switch over.

I have a former classmate that was still doing mainframe development as a military contractor using I believe COBOL but I know she was doing something with JCL up to two years ago.

spoiler alert, COBOL and Assembly are used for major financial systems that you use every day (no snark intended). I live in a city that headquarters one of the largest credit card processing companies around (they use Assembler), a large insurance company (they use COBOL), and a too-big-to-fail bank (they use COBOL).

The CS school within the state school in this city is sponsored by one of those companies, and they still teach (2018!) COBOL as a course req--obviously as a way to train up talent--but the fact that it's still taught today boggles the mind for me as a web developer learning something-newJS every week.

>I wonder if most engineers now are just permanent amateurs hopping around between tools and projects, learning just enough to make it work without breaking, but not knowing how to build things properly. How many years would it take to really become expert in that language? Even if you focused all your time on that, by the time you have mastered it another language will have come along to replace it, or the language itself will have been transformed into something new.

This is basically why I continually fail to make it as a web developer, at the times I'm forced to try. Even though I enjoy the work just fine, I don't have anywhere near the passion to keep up with every new framework on my own time.

What kinds of companies do you work for and what kind of teams?

Basically full stack web developer, probably a lot of these issues are particularly bad in this field

>Wow, I wish I was an engineer in that era. 25 years at the same company, 3 languages over 13 years.

I work for a competitor to General Dynamics in practically the same field (as close as you can get in 2018) as Mr. Ray Livesay.

Counting the acquisition, I've been with the same company for 11 years, having worked my way up from being a technical writer to programmer to systems engineer.

When I wanted to transition from programmer to systems engineer, I went to school to get my Master's and the company paid for most of it.

Sometimes I feel like an alien, reading about other working programmers and engineers, because everyone here has their own office, has worked here for years, is happy, enjoys great benefits, the company promotes from within, and encourages professional development.

But then I go to our "competipartners" and their offices are set up the same way, their benefits are within a marginal twist of a dial up or down here or there, and when I go to trade shows I see the same people with the same employer polo shirts year after year after year.

The only reason I'll leave my employer is if, in a couple of years after I transition to "senior" systems engineer there isn't a position on a contract or program that will support my labor category.

Maybe aerospace is the field you want to look at getting into? There are no "rock star" programmers, just people who work 9-5.

It is not really appealing to most younger folks because we aren't a bunch of "hip young urban professionals" with MacBooks clustered around a communal workspace in a downtown startup incubator in a converted loft/warehouse lit by faux edison light bulbs in iron-pipe light fixtures with a pinball machine and some scooters in the corner.

We're a bunch of old dudes in a generic office park. And we're paid in "lots of money" instead of "a little bit of money with tons of stock and a promise".

Google/Microsoft/amazon/facebook/other big top companies seem to only have people work in group settings, but the problem is they pay a metric shitload of money. I've worked for several of them on this list. Work at one of those for 10 years and you might be fixed for life. I also used to work at Microsoft back when we all had private offices but I was lucky enough to be there when the stock was steadily appreciating.

I recently went to a startup but I don't know if they will make it, and I would love a company with private offices and a bit of stability. But I'm afraid I'll be left looking at the other companies left i haven't de-FAANG-ed yet. What is the name of your company?

I wish I knew. Looking at this user's post history (only two pages) it appears to be defence-aviation related.

Amazon doesn’t pay much.

i thought including the stock amazon pays well these days, better than microsoft. that's what my friend working there says.

> i thought including the stock amazon pays well these days

Stock is not pay. As the old saying goes, "A bird in the hand is worth N in the bush, where N is a value that people whose profession is to guess the value of N cannot guess the value of."

>Stock is not pay

It's not, but it'd also be foolish to ignore that RSU's can be fairly easily exercised and translate into real money. It's probably more accurate to say that the stock isn't worth the face value, but RSU's certainly does have value at public companies.

Amazon stock is pay. It has a monetary value that it is easily convertible into. If your point is that RSUs have vesting schedules, annual salary does too, in the form of paychecks.

I applaud that your company promotes from within and encourages professional development. I think that is more likely to happen when a company can rely on most employees sticking around for a while, which they probably will because of the opportunities provided inside the company. A virtuous cycle.

However, it also sounds extremely expensive to run a business with everything you described. It might only be possible because you appear to work in the group of large corporations that exist off of a government contracting system that has been criticized as being fundamentally broken. Projects cost way too much, take too long, and are frequently late and over budget anyway. I've heard a lot of that has to do with the government constantly asking for changes and asking for too much, but whatever way you slice it the only reason it works is because it is basically non-competitive. Does your company create successful consumer products?

Spacex is aerospace too, but they are disrupting their industry. I wonder if all the engineers there get their own offices and stay in the same roles for years, with the same technology.

I don't have enough experience to know which works best, letting engineers become professionals in their niche, making the business not very adaptable but having some deep strengths, or moving fast and breaking things, being adaptable and fast moving, but have some crappy code gluing things together that will need replacing in a few years.

What is the salary growth like? My experience is that the only way to get more than a 3% raise per year is to job hop. Salary compression and inversion are real.

3%! Luxury! Best I've pulled off for sitting around is 0.9%pa.

"I have an offer from OtherCo. But I'd like to stay here. Could you match it?"

"We don't negotiate salaries."

I worked at a competitor to GD for about 7 years. Had a great career trajectory until a managerial fuckup cost the company one third of the revenue and they had to ax 50 percent of the staff. Be careful, those big, stable companies can tend to lull you into thinking things can't go left quickly. They most assuredly can, and do.