Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm_Lemony
I think this is a very negative attitude to have.
|
I would say it's not negative; it's realistic. IT has a high failure rate for its projects (that's not an opinion, that's what the statistics say and have said since the late 70s), so if you're going to be a professional in the field, you should be taking a conservative and pragmatic outlook, even if that's a bit of work to maintain
But that's not the culture you see promoted a lot - look through our news sites and we're an industry that, publicly at least, appears to be pushing the "rock star" attitude a lot - aim big, plan big, be sure to worry about "web scale", try to be the next big thing, criticise any other approach (whether calmly or with the infamous "F*ck You" powerpoint slide at a supposedly professional conference) and so on and so forth (and yes, you should be hearing
this when you read that

).
Me, I think that's simply not professional and might be great fun when you're in your teens and twenties, but your career lasts a lot longer than that and unless you plan to migrate off to management or somewhere else by then, you need a better perspective, and frankly, that means accepting that you will fail and planning so that that failure doesn't do as much damage as it might if you didn't plan for it.
Quote:
|
You need to take risks and be encouraged to do so.
|
I'm an engineer. We're trained to be risk-averse. Literally so - the very first lecture at 0900 on the first day of your first year in engineering in TCD is spent watching video and photo footage of Tacoma Narrows, of the Silver Bridge, of the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, BA flight 5390 and so on, paying attention to causes and casualty figures; the lesson is that this is a profession where a serious mistake causes major disasters and can kill people. And then they talk about Therac-25 and Ariane-V for the sniggering computer engineers who think that this only happens to civil and mechanical engineers. These days they'd probably include people causing major car accidents from following GPS units, or Ulster Bank, or the many, many, many (seriously, what the hell?) incidents of radiation overdoses from computerised radiation therapy machines since Therac-25.
That attitude of knowing the cost of a major failure isn't something to take lightly carries over from the work you do, to how you approach the job in general, and frankly I think that's a good thing. Taking calculated risks deliberately is one thing (and a good thing if done right) whether it's with a design or with a career; telling a new grad to jump in with both feet and take risks they have no experience with and no possible way to gauge because of a lack of experience and data... well, I wouldn't call that a wise course of action.
It
sounds great, especially in the blogosphere as an inspirational post (
"I followed my dreams! They blew up, but I followed them and that's what counts!"), where it might well make the top of HN for a day or two before the next shiny thing comes along, but your career is supposed to be a few decades long and honestly, if you screw up a major project on your lonesome - which can happen in your first job in a small enough startup - that can follow you around for a bit. And
everyone screws up in the beginning, it's what you're meant to do and you're not going to be any good until you do because you won't learn.
Hence my thought that it's better to go work with experienced people for a year or so and knock off the rough edges and get some data, some experience; and
then start taking risks when you have some idea of what's entailed in them.
Or, in the tl;dr version:
Quote:
|
Jumping in at the deep end is good for a persons character building in my opinion.
|
Good way to drown too, if you don't know how to swim
Quote:
|
Finally, yes pay is a big factor, but it's not what drives people.
|
....to an extent, yes, when you're young.
Frankly, I thought the OP was the usual 21/22-yo new developer, not someone on a second career; in his case, saying "don't follow the money" might not be realistic. We kindof expect the living-in-a-garret thing from young new grads, but for people starting off who may have families and mortgages to worry about, the money is rather important. I know I couldn't go back to a 30k salary now even if I wanted to for just that reason. And honestly, there are
very few companies out there doing things interesting enough to take a pay cut to work for, but a
huge number who all claim that they're doing things that interesting. So I've never been a massive believer in the idea that pay is irrelevant (it's not primary once it goes above a certain threshold, and it's a lousy motivator, yes; but it's more complicated than just being some binary choice -- there are whole academic studies of the principles in play here, it doesn't condense to a soundbite well).
Quote:
|
And as for managers, I would completely disagree that they are better in larger companies. At the highest ranks of an organisation yes, but mid to low level would be no different than with a small company.
|
I wouldn't have had the same experience - the best managers I've ever had or met did not work for small startups. The worst, however, universally did. I mean, you'll find bad managers in large companies and good managers in small companies as well, but the odds seem better in larger companies (though to be fair, it does appear to be very tightly coupled to the company's culture).