I am glad my content has been helpful.

Thanks for sharing!

😆

Hopefully you picked up a few tips to help you get better at it.

Yep, I'm sure it is messy.

I'm not sure where you saw jobs six years ago that were practically giving them away, but that wasn't the case around here. It may be a bit harder in some ways now, but that isn't the same thing as "to a todo app, get a job" easy before. Entry-level jobs aren't non-existent any more than they were 10 years ago. Companies are asking for those 2-5 years of experience for junior level jobs because they are looking for some way to validate that you have actual skills. A LOT of people overestimate their skills, thinking that since they've watched tutorials for a year that they must be a junior-level or better developer. That's not true. It is experience that confers that ability.

Thanks!

What about it? Are you asking if you should tell an employer?

Nah. I'm not sure where you get the idea that software quality degrades every year. That feels like a feeling rather than an objective fact. For instance, when Windows 95 came out, it was basically an open book. It barely had security in it. Basically, if you could get it connected to a network, you could talk to it. Things got somewhat better over time, but it was still so bad that by the time Windows XP was out, Microsoft paused all other work to create Service Pack 2. That was probably the most expensive service pack ever. They did that because XP was riddled with security holes and bugs that could be exploited. Fast forward to today, we don't see anywhere near the amount of exploits that we did back in the pre-SP2 XP days. We are getting better at software development. We are also expanding places where our software works. It used to be that a web page was static. Now, your website is actually a full application. That's like saying cars get worse every year. It isn't that they get worse, it is that they are doing more and so you will see more issues. My 1987 Chevy S-10 pickup had crank windows, a bench seat, and could barely hit the speed limit without shaking. My Ford Lightning has power...everything, heated and cooled captains chairs, and it can do 0-60 in 4 seconds flat. There are more things to go wrong, but that doesn't mean that vehicles are getting worse. There isn't a big push for vehicles with crank windows, manual door locks, wonky A/C, and little power anymore. As for hiring managers wanting "talented engineers that are also socialites", that's not what they are looking for. However, being able to have a conversation with another non-engineer is a valuable skill. Believe it or not, there is more to being a software developer than just writing code. Focusing only on your coding skills and purposely ignoring building up your other skills is a BIG mistake. That doesn't mean you have to be an extrovert. In fact, I am an introvert. I'm uncomfortable in situations where I am around strangers and need to talk to them. However, I have practiced that skill so that I am not hindered by it. Instead of making an excuse, I do something about it.

Your examples are a completely different topic. You're debating about the state of compiled knowledge. Of course I agree with every bit of that. Only someone insane would disagree with any of it. I'm talking specifically about skill, the ability to solve problems. The percentage of software released full of bugs is outrageous today. Look at modern software by major companies, from Skype all the way up to the F-22. Skype turned into a joke after MS acquired it and only recently (last several months) is it somewhat resembling polished. Why does the windows Netflix app crash constantly and has been for years? The gaming industry is riddled with incompetent programmers. Games used to never release to the public in unplayable states. Look at The Day Before. That company was outright lied to by their lead programmers. They faked all of it. Cities Skylines 2 is a perfect example. They hired a team that made management believe they knew what they were doing and now they're stuck with an unusable framework that has to be completely rewritten. That game will use the max 64 threads that windows allots (another engineering embarrassment) and still run at 20fps. This is a result of hiring people that are charming instead of focusing solely on a portfolio that was made solely by them. This is not just my opinion. This is a known problem. Perhaps talent is getting spread thin. KZfaq videos about horror stories with engineers that insist on allotting 2 months to a task that should take 45 minutes. They get away with this because they're talented at talking because the job application requested "amazing communication skills" and the hiring managers focused too much on that (and HR before them.) The side effect is you get people that are also amazing at manipulating/charming/bullshitting you. Open-source software has amazing quality and there's a very clear reason for this. Open-source authors are passionate about programming, while the majority of other programmers became one because they think it is prestigious and good money, but don't have an ounce of passion for it. They're good at writing convincing resumes and charming hiring managers. Despite how well you think your hiring practices are, you are influenced on a subconscious level with the type of talks you mention in this video which can make you like a candidate for the wrong reasons. Talking too much will cloud your decision. The awkward candidates with proven portfolios that don't articulate very well at the start (they will once they're comfortable), are the best talent. Of course I'm talking mostly about lead positions. I could care less how juniors are hired, but please back them up with well-paid talent.

I think you are missing the point, though. The code from 20 years ago had 3 buttons and a switch compared to trying to launch the space shuttle in today's code. You brought up gaming, so let's discuss it. I just went to GDC two weeks ago. I sat in two talks that I think are relevant to this discussion. First, I sat in on a talk where one of the level designers for the game Tie Fighter was talking about how they built the game. Essentially just two guys built all of the levels for that game over the course of a year. They faked a LOT of things, since their code could do so little. For instance, when you were attacked by enemy ships in the game, they would send those attacks in waves. The reason why was because they had a very limited number of moving objects that they could support (I believe the number was 12 and that went down if you had a capital ship). By coming in waves, they could simulate a larger dogfight. The second relevant talk I went to was by a project manager at Larian on the building of Baldur's Gate 3. In that game, they have more written words than three times that of the entire Lord of the Rings book series and they have twice as many cinematic minutes as the entire Game of Thrones TV series. They had studios literally around the globe so that they could "chase the sun" and have active work being done on the project 22 hours per day (at a normal pace). Now, compare those two games. Is the difference between the quality of the two the fact that the Tie Fighter crew was just better at development? As of right now, BG3 has had 23 hot fixes and Tie Fighter had to ship a complete game that worked the first time. Is that a fair comparison? Of course not. The complexity of games today such as BG3 are so far beyond what was done even ten years ago that there cannot be a comparison between the two. I'm not saying that there aren't bad developers out there. What I am saying is that this has always been the case. I'm not sure how long you have been in the industry or how many businesses you have seen, but I can say from experience that what we are seeing today is very similar to what I saw as a consultant 25 years ago. Big companies hire poorly. Sometimes they get great teams, but often they have teams that struggle. The wrong people get promoted (the Peter Principle among other reasons), and it makes a mess. That has nothing to do with a degradation in peoples' level of skill or ability to solve problems.

I don't think it is as big of a red flag as people think. Some people function better when around other people. It makes working from home a challenge. Mixing the two environments can be hard. So, companies are forced to make a choice. For example, I employ 5 people full-time. We are all work from home. We don't have a central office. However, there are some things we do specifically because of that in order to help with the feeling of disconnectedness that comes from work from home. We meet in person once a month. Every other week, I meet one on one with every employee for an hour. Part of that time is dedicated to personal conversations (water-cooler type conversations). Every day, we have a Teams message that prompts us to share what we are each working on that day (one primary task). Every Friday, a Teams message prompts us to share a win from the week. All of these things help foster connection, shared vision, and community when working remotely. Even still, if I offered a central location, probably half of my team would jump on it. Similarly, I've worked at organizations that insisted on in-office work only. They struggle with allowing employees to do focused work. They also struggle with wasted time. Plus, it is harder on the employees (drive time, commute costs, etc.) I wouldn't say either situation is a red flag in itself. What is a red flag for me is how they do it. Companies can do either situation well or poorly. Also, if a company promises work from home and then later forces everyone to come back to the office, that's another issue entirely.

How so?

You are welcome.