Hacker News Reader

There seems to be some confusion amongst people who move from writing code for fun to writing code for money. Which is of course that they're not being paid to write code, but to solve problems. Writers and musicians usually don't get paid just to write or make music, they get paid to entertain. If you're confused about why you're being paid, you might start to think you're getting a raw deal.

Since I started writing software not because of any love for it, but to solve various problems I was having at the time, it's always sort of shocked me that some people manage to get so far into their careers without realizing what they're being paid for.

I quite enjoy it now, but rarely in the revel of pure creation. Usually it's from the satisfaction of a problem solved in a reasonable amount of time under well considered constraints.

Agreed.

A small example: you have some internal database, and now different teams want to have some data analysis done.

The fun thing to do would be to write a generic reporting front end, and easy enough to use so that non-technical people can use to create their own report.

And the pragmatic solution that is to instead spew out all relevant data as CSV with a BOM, so that Excel can easily read it. Turns out a generic data analysis tool exists, and it's unlikely you can beat Excel at its job.

Producing some CSV files from a DB is orders of magnitude less work than creating your own analysis front end, so in nearly all cases, this is the solution you're paid to do.

> I have never lacked work. And I'm confident I never will with this attitude.

I believe you. But that's also because you started this path in life a long time ago. If you're 40+, you've never done freelance/contract work and you need to start finding customers or new employment in a hurry then it's going to be a hungry winter.

you need to start finding customers or new employment in a hurry

What I'm suggesting is being the first to present a believeable plan to solve someone else's problem. You're right, finding them and figuring out what they need isn't easy. But once you do, you have a huge advantage over all the other "unemployable" programmers.

Who says anything about freelance work. People think experience = programming + being paid.

experience = programming if you can show a active github profile with clean code that shows you are pro-active or a expert in stack or domain, why would "they" not atleast contact you back.

on the other side, if you have just been coding closed source, brain farts and clones that have no innovation or any overlapping area in what you are applying for, then why would they hire you.

if your looking to get hired by a Oracle or a HP, freelance experience wont cut and i doubt a github profile either, but besides huge corporate companies. most small/medium sized startups are willing to hire programmers that can learn and supply added value.

value is the keyword here, having more then 1 trick in your bag is a must if your coming at it from the "no diploma" angle. Thats why i recommended people to write code for readabilities sake. if nothing else, someone can read it. even if its some crusty 10 year old code.

"if you can show a active github profile with clean code that shows you are pro-active or a expert in stack or domain, why would "they" not atleast contact you back."

Because you're older, or a minority, or female...

It's about creating value. It always is. Whether an individual employee, or a company.

The problem is "value" comes through a subjective lens. Different employers value a given work product differently. The OP's big-co employer is likely to value process and documentation.

In this start-up environment, speed is also relevant. Make lots of value quickly.

edw519's 90 pitch works largely because he presents himself in a manner for his customer to clearly see the value he would create. He spelled it out.

Its less about talking about yourself and more about talking about them.

The key thing the OP needs to do (and should have been doing) is networking (outside of work). As others have pointed out, with that much experience, you also should have a network of folks to reach out to.

It can take a long time to build a network. Fortunately, there are tons of opportunities in tech to do so. I'd imagine one of the best paths might be to fine a moderately significant trending (but not trendy) open source project and start getting involved in the community (in whatever way the community needs (maybe not coding initially)).

Learn the code base inside and out. Read the forums, discuss things with people. Create value! Find something needed and do it!

You'll meet people (virtually) along the way. Build a public reputation (very important), and maybe find a job. At least you'll be able to reference your relevant skill in said open source project. You'll then be an older developer, but with very relevant job skills to someone out there.

THIS! might be THE answer how people works. My life changed significantly when I read this article [1] and realized this is so True. It basically says the same: everybody looks what can you do FOR THEM and that's the main thing that matters.

[1]: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-yo...

Really hits the nail on the head.

When writing resumes and doing interview prep, I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes. Would I hire me? Would I be offering what is wanted?

It's nearly impossible for people to see how you do something useful for users, even if you already work for 10 years in a company. So I'd say that's the least important point of your employability. Other things like being able to integrate to the development team, that's way more important.

Good advice. You as an experienced professional should always ask what pain points they are experiencing and have suggestions. Even if you don't know the answer for the pain-points you can at least learn something by asking the question.

No, this is feeding into that "meritocracy" myth again. You're assuming that everyone is perfectly rational, and only looks at code, when in reality this is far from the case. In reality, the interviewer looks at you as a person, and has their own biases.

Some people are perfectly capable of doing the work, and are passed up for completely irrational reasons. Empathy, try it, please.