The market might be right that Nvidia is overvalued, but if so I think only accidentally and not because of this news. Like you said, at least for now I think it's fairly clear that if a company has X resources and finds a way to do the same thing with half, instead of using less they'll just try to do twice as much. This could eventually changed but I don't think AI is anywhere near that point yet.
A lot of things in the article I think most younger software engineers would agree with (I'm mid 30s for context, so around where he seemingly put the divide, definitely not an OG). Almost everyone I've ever met wants less meetings and more time to focus/code. I understand if this may be something that has changed over time but I definitely don't think it's something younger engineers want, even if they do have to deal with it. If anything I think they'd relate most since they've always had to get their work done with less time to actually focus. I also hate the idea of daily check ins/standups and don't like two week sprints, but we don't do either of those and I haven't at previous companies.
Other things mentioned I just don't think are actually true about modern software development, although possibly it depends on your company. I've worked mostly in FAANG companies and we absolutely spend a ton of time on design. And I think this is where collaboration, team cohesion, etc. is so important. The design phase is where you need that communication, then you ideally separate and focus on your own work solo. Then maybe get some review etc. (though like he mentioned, I agree code reviews themselves are relatively pointless, I haven't done one since working at a smaller company). But during the design and somewhat ongoing it can be extremely helpful to know what partner teams and engineers are working on (though daily updates absolutely are not needed).
My biggest takeaway from the article is that he really, really, hates writing unit tests. I see pros and cons for both approaches honestly. As a software developer I would love someone else (dedicated QA) to handle a lot of this for me. I don't know if that's necessarily actually better from a company perspective though (not saying it's not either). It definitely makes scaling tougher for very large companies. Who's QA on a 3 person team (or "group") for example, does every team need dedicated QA? When is it worth having? Obviously that's something that can potentially be solved, but it's not necessarily easier or worth it. My experience though is that at best it's extremely exaggerated to state that unit tests are the main focus these days. In total I maybe spend two weeks a year writing tests, if that.
As for documentation and learning on the job my experience also doesn't stack up, and this is maybe the part I feel like the article comes closest to "old man yells at cloud". You are absolutely expected to constantly be learning and improving on the job and you better have read all relevant documentation. The first thing that happens on any team I join is I'm given pages and pages of documentation to go through. I spend most of my early time on teams literally studying it and taking notes. I think a lot of the "back in my day" quotes in regards to these topics are some of the most out of touch in this article. "We didn't have stack overflow so we had to..." So what? Stack Overflow exists now, people adjust. It can also be a learning tool in and of itself.
Overall I think some of the major points may be true (though as mentioned I don't necessarily think younger engineers would actually disagree with those points). I've never worked at Microsoft specifically so can't say what it's like there, maybe a lot of this is more accurate. I don't think I read very much that I think actually shows a divide between software developers of each generation though, other than speculation that younger developers can't concentrate.
I worked in programming back then, and you have the best response of all the others.
I have not worked in the field for a long time, but everything seems the same back then as it does now, as you represent it happening.
Back the the day, of course we spent a boatload more time in the design phase, lots of meetings to see what needs to be done. That's just common sense. How can you program if you don't know what to program? But then, as you get into the project, you create an excel spreadsheet with all the questions that you have, and then get them answered. But I would HATE to have to go to a scheduled meeting every week to discuss it. I prefer to just go over and ask the people, when it was convenient for me and them.
However, I had always worked in smaller companies, where it was easy to just walk over and talk to the person, no matter what level they were, from receptionist to CEO. But I recognize that in a huge company like Google, things have to be different. But personally, I would never elect to work in companies like that. It's not my skill set. I'd commit suicide in a company like that. I'd rather work in programming in a sewer company or a retail store company with 20 stores, where they had a computer department of 5 or 10 people. That's just me. I hate being a cog in a machine. I like variety and talking to all different levels and different departments, when I chose to do so. Nobody in a small or medium sized business is going to have mandatory meetings 20 hours a week. That's just not reality. Just no way in hell, back then or now. As I said, I have not worked in the industry for a long time, but I think you can generalize this, that working for a small or medium sized company is going to be as he said. But even back in the day, if you worked in IBM or some huge company with 50 or 100 programmers, even then, it was like the author said he hated - much more strict and regulated, even back then. I never worked in them, but I was in the industry and talked to those that did work in them, and read industry journals. But even at Microsoft, there was a f-ck of a lot more rigidity. Maybe not if you were a superstar programmer, but if you were low on the food chain, you were going to be strictly regulated. Maybe Microsoft not as much as IBM, but still. Not like working in a 3-15 person department at a small company, where you pretty much have full autonomy, and your time is your own.
So, things really are not too different, actually.
I see that you worked about FAANG, but even now, would you think working at a small company with 3-15 tech people, would be more like the author said? Just by common sense? I'm sure you agree with me.
That's a factor but not a rule. The biggest test basically boils down to would a normal person reasonably be confused. In this case I don't think anyone would think this was a Google product. Knowing very little else I don't personally think Google would win a trademark suit like this on its merits, but being Google of course they actually could win if they threw money at it, or make it not worth pursuing.
I answered no to a lot of these... not exactly an eye-opener, as I'm looking for a new job. Still, I'm not super unhappy with my current role, but this does help put into perspective why I want a change.
The ones that stand out most to me are 6 and 11. My old manager definitely encouraged development and would talk about progress. Company's shuffled around a lot and now it just seems like everyone's kind of going through the motions, just trying not to screw up or get let go. No one's discussed advancement, opportunities, growth, etc. for a while now, and that coincided with my decision to leave.
You highlight an important point: your direct manager can really make or break a lot of these but they're ultimately beholden to the same macro environment as you. I try to shelter my direct reports but if we M&A, cancel major projects or change strategic direction my teams are not isolated from the impact which can be really hard on things like working towards specific career goals and directions.
My biggest self learning while becoming a manager is that the developer acid test of "smart, gets stuff done and not an a-hole" still applies, maybe more than before. I used to get personally invested in my work and now I care about each person.
reply