I understand your frustration, but the phrasing doesn't hint at a great attitude here.
Also, from my own observations, in Europe "hipster" doesn't have a negative connotation, meaning simply "cool person"
Part of the reason I left software is because everybody expects this obnoxious puppy-dog personality out of developers. The grumpy old bastards just want to be left alone to stew
Uh, what? Maybe in some parts, in Germany hipster is absolutely negative.
Is this a new thing? I remember explicitly telling my Berliner friend that hipster had a negative connotation where I came from. Maybe all those things I heard about Berlin not being Germany are true :P
Where I lived in Holland the term was similarly neutral. (Also I saw an ad in Dutch "hipster" where it meant panties or women's underwear?)
This would be about 10 years ago though
> Berliner
The joke really writes itself :D
But I’ll also allow that this might be one of the occasions where I’m too out of touch with German culture, it’s not as if I talk about hipsters with my German friends ;)
> Also I saw an ad in Dutch "hipster" where it meant panties or women's underwear?
> Low-rise is a style of clothing designed to sit low on, or below, the hips. The style can also be called lowcut, hipster, or hip-hugger.
Yeah, it didn't really come up with German friends from other parts of the country. Though the Berliner epitomized "hipster" in the California definition of the word. I miss that guy...
Not really "cool person", more like "pretentious person".
I always understood it as "someone who is putting extra effort into finding obscure/novel things just to appear cool".
A pretentious person is a person who thinks they're "better" than others (whatever that means) for irrelevant reasons, like their taste.
A poser is a person who in addition doesn't have the good tastes to be better than others, and so he fakes their tastes. He's putting in effort in order to attain pretentiousness.
I would define hipster as synonym of poser. It's worse than pretentious.
If it was a serious question, he could've solved it by googling, and the answer is yes, of course there's situations where you could have life outside of work. Half of the developers I know work 9 to 5, and I can google and see how others are doing. Instead, he's just venting. Which is understandable in his situation, but doesn't make it a serious question.
I'd call that wisdom...
* There are new people going into software development all the time (because like some other poster said it's one hell of a cushy job). As a result, there are a lot of developers who spend a lot of time learning frameworks because they don't really know the language or the operating principles of the underlying platform/environment. This only makes them replaceable and easy to exploit. Differentiate and build yourself a moat by cultivating a deeper understanding of those subject matters that you personally find most inspiring.
* Churn is especially bad in frontend, but if you are already good at VanillaJS you'll do fine and be productive in any framework. You may even find it fun to learn how different tools solve the same problems differently. This requires you to be familiar with the essence of those problems, and not only the usage of the solutions. I suggest becoming familiar more deeply with the more time-tested tools, as they have the greatest mindshare and the most prolific ecosystems - so, more stuff out there for your to reuse and learn from. "Choose boring techology": https://boringtechnology.club/
* On a related note, if you do find yourself working in the Web ecosystem, I suggest brushing up on the history of JavaScript, especially how the transition from ES5 to ES6 and beyond was implemented. This is the ultimate source of most of the complexity that people have in mind when complaining about framework churn. The proliferation of React and TypeScript, and the related, somewhat forced migration from CommonJS to ESModules over the past 2-3 years, are a continuation of that.
* The "new shiny hipster framework" is a blip on the radar. The chances of being exposed to one in production are low by definition, and you should cherish them. If it's some particularly bad one you might spearhead an effort to replace it with something more sensible throughout, and get experience that will lead to better career progression. What's more likely is being exposed to (a) a specialized in-house framework which cannot be readily transferred across gigs, (b) a mainstream framework which gradually reveals its ugliness as you become familiar with it.
* Working with/on in-house framework could be a great opportunity for learning and applying higher-level concepts across the spectrum from development to business. Mainstream frameworks can be a bit depressing because a lot of them are open source in name only - they are a way for tech giants to get people to solve their problems for free, i.e. once you see what they're doing wrong you can't unsee it, it's all over the place, and you can't really do much of anything about it. Find the one you hate the least and learn how make it do something that its authors totally didn't anticipate - that way you'll know enough to fix it when it inevitably falls apart.
* Work-life balance is not a constant. The learning curve in this line of work is steep but the amount of fundamental knowledge that you need before you can be reasonably productive in any generic developer role is finite. (They say mastery takes 10000 hours. They also say that number is bollocks.) In the end, you gotta put food on the table, and you gotta stay healthy and not burn yourself out in order to... keep putting food on the table. Think laterally, don't get stuck in that loop, and think how to spend time on activities that you, personally, find meaningful.
lel