People often can’t control what technologies their employer uses, but if they have solid fundamentals and I can tell they have tried to learn things on their own, more often then not I’ll give them a chance, and it usually works out because they are doing what they really want to do, and they are always looking for ways to build upon and improve what they’ve worked on.
Somebody has to build and maintain them.
Have you considered that maybe they’re fine with their level of responsibility and can leave work at the office?
If they are not there because they love working with technology, there are other places for them to be.
Or… am I hearing a new web3 startup?
(If I ever end up doing this; this comment will age super well)
I enjoy being the dumbest person in the room. Others find it threatening.
And for those who are so busy outside of work that they can't grow inside of work, I feel for them because that sounds like an exhausting life.
But there's also a place for durable things of lasting value, built by people who enjoy perfecting their skills, technique, and craftsmanship with mature tools to solve problems well, learn the domain well, and build lasting relationships with customers who are big spenders.
It's kind of naive to assume that those people are making no effort to better themselves just because they're not always chasing after the latest hot new thing.
This isn’t true for all industries. Some have software systems with engineering life measured in decades
The only pool of software that both employs a large number of engineers, has an engineering life measured in decades and isn't rewritten every 3-5 years to a large degree is enterprise software, in my experience. Think C/C++/Java/.NET middleware type stuff.
And I imagine 90% of HN actively runs away from those jobs :-)
I've worked in more 'traditional' engineering fields (manufacturing, energy, healthcare, aerospace) and the vast, vast majority are long tenured systems built for dedicated uses. I've worked on many systems that are older than me. For those in SV, I imagine it's the opposite. Like you said, HN may be biased to a specific type of development which often leads to biased claims. Tbf, my main issue is with the "everything" modifier in the OPs claim.
Nope. 30+ years of experience here working for different software companies in 5 different countries. I still use most of the knowledge today that I learned 30 years ago.
Software development fundamentally changes very rarely. However software development fashion changes all the time. But the latest fashion is just a slightly different implementation of the same underlying fundamental things I already understand. It is just a slightly different flavour of ice cream.