Software Development a Dead-End Career?

Polymorpheus

This Bloomberg article is nearly a couple of years old now, but I've seen the debate rehashed quite a few times more recently (reddit, slashdot).

What would be interesting is some opinions from developers working in Ireland specifically. Do you think software development is a young man's game? Is there any truth to this from your experience? And what would you say to somebody who is considering a career change to software development in their 30's?

Boskowski

Changing into IT in your 30ies is going to be difficult because what IT employers value above all is experience. And that invalidates completely what Bloomberg says because you just don't have that experience in your 20ies. 20ies is fine for gathering experience and working 60 hours plus for Accenture or Google or whatever but thats only one side of the coin.

I'm in my 40ies now and I'd say I'm as employable as I ever was due to my 20 years of experience in all sorts of fields.

IT is never just about the latest web this and that which only came out 6 months ago and will disappear in 6 months down the road. Loads of systems and their technologies have much more longevity than you would imagine. Not in my current job but in the one before that the most valuable (and paid) folks were the Cobol veterans, some of them were in their 60ies. I have a good chunk of embedded and real-time experience in C/C++ and assembly and I get unsolicited job offers all the time. In my current company we have a hard time getting half decent SQL developers and you would imagine that should be a core skill. Its all about a wide range of skills and niche skills and older technology skills I find particularly good to have.

You will definitely struggle changing into IT development in your 30ies, cos you can't compete with the 20 somethings doing 60 hours java/web/mobile and you can't compete with the guys your age or older 'cos they have 10, 20 years experience.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

unfortunately, ageism comes into it as well. not that you get worse the older you get but can you put in 80 hour weeks when you've a wife and kids at home? i don't care how many people deny it but sometimes you need to go into crunch mode and live at the office to get a project out the door.

Boskowski

I will deny it. It can happen but if it happens repeatedly then something else is broken in your project lifecycle. But I concede it can happen and then you just have to suck it up. I'm sure self employed people/business owners will have to combine family and long hours a lot too. In any case a lot of the time you can compensate by simply being more productive/effective/experienced. Its like the center half who's getting on a bit. He mightn't have the pace but he positions himself better.
Maybe I'm just being lucky or my estimates have become more realistic but I haven't had an 80 hour week in a long long time.
I wouldn't call it ageism anyway, lots of people in their twenties have spouses and even kids, too.

Manach

One of the advantages of gaining experience is at project time both to estimate better the effort required and to tell any manager that mentions 80hr weeks to go jump off a pier.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm delighted to see this thread as this is something that been bobbing about inside my head for a while.

Also good to see that it's not completely a young man's game.

I myself am 31 and been working in development since 2005. I world like to think that it's not just a young man's game as not everyone wants or can be a manager of one type or another.

Sparks

georgiecasey wrote: »

sometimes you need to go into crunch mode and live at the office to get a project out the door.

Been there, done that dick-measuring contest ("I can do 32 hours in a stretch!" "That's nothing bro, hold my drink and watch me do 40!"), seen the mess it creates, learnt the lesson that it's an indicator that management doesn't know what it's doing and you should be polishing the resume if it happens more than once in a very very blue moon.

And I'm 37 and don't plan to get out of actual development work anytime in the visible future. I build stuff, it's how I stay sane and happy, and it happens to pay all the bills so far. I don't plan for it to make me more money than I can ever spend (though I'll take that if it shows up ), and honestly I think chasing that particular pipe dream does a damn sight more harm than good and not just to the people doing the chasing (as the Oculus FaceRift deal has seen several well-known people like Notch saying in the last week or two).

But then, I think Steve Jobs was an arsehole and Steve Wozniak was the better example of how to be a good human being. I may be an outlier on the graph

OwenM

Law of diminishing returns applies to this unless the work is repetitive or procedure based. If you are doing 60hr weeks you are doing 50% more work for free.... not a work place or practice you should settle into.

I worked in IT and went back to do a degree so I could get into development and I was in my 30's, it has worked out well.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Sparks wrote: »

Been there, done that dick-measuring contest ("I can do 32 hours in a stretch!" "That's nothing bro, hold my drink and watch me do 40!"), seen the mess it creates, learnt the lesson that it's an indicator that management doesn't know what it's doing and you should be polishing the resume if it happens more than once in a very very blue moon.

Well I've always worked for myself, never for a company. I probably should have mentioned that in my reply. Still though, I think there's nothing wrong with long hours if you enjoy it and I really do enjoy it.

Sparks

georgiecasey wrote: »

I think there's nothing wrong with long hours if you enjoy it and I really do enjoy it.

Research studies into the effects of long working hours that dates back to before Henry Ford says that there is something wrong with it.

If you enjoy it, great, but that in and of itself doesn't make it good. For example, I enjoy tequila; but ethanol is a neurotoxin (and dancing naked on tables is banned by many many byelaws).

Likewise, 80+ hour weeks might be fun to you (though honestly, if they are, I think you either have the greatest job ever or are in need of some perspective); but every study ever done has shown they decrease the quality of your work, increase your completion times, decrease your creativity, adversely affect your mental and physical health so badly that in other contexts they're called torture, and take a great stinking bowel movement all over the concept of a work-life balance. Which makes your job less pleasant, makes the company less attractive to workers and generally doesn't have any upsides.

moycullen14

Dead End Career? Load of nonsense.

Software development has been putting food on my table for nearly 30 years. God willing, it will continue to do so.

Just this week I have been writing some perl scripts to automate a delivery system, a skill I learnt back in the early 90s. Next task will be to convert them to python so I get to learn another language.

As long as you are willing and able to learn and are excited about the possibilities of IT development then you'll be fine.

Moving into project or general management is something that never appealed to me. In fact, I can't think of anything worse than project management, an awful soul-destroying job (Have you filled in your time-sheets yet?), depending on others to do things that you can't do anymore. I don't understand how anyone who is not involved in the nitty-gritty of development can make informed decisions on architecture, design and scheduling.

No doubt ageism is rampant. Younger people seem to put up with a lot more crap and are a lot cheaper but you can't beat a bit of experience.

beauf

The problem with project management is you meet so many doing it who have no aptitude for it. I've worked with some great and many dire project managers. They don't have to have a developer background if they have good technical people working with them and they listen to them. So often they don't.

The issue with development is you always need to be learning new tech and working on projects using it. So skillsets and experience. If you have that I don't think it matters what age you are. But that does take time, and time is what younger people generally have more off. Less commitments outside of work etc. If you are older and can spend time working on projects and new tech then it shouldn't be an issue.

A lot of these articles are from people and places with a vested interest in keeping salaries low, and hours long. So don't take them at face value.

Many of the places I've worked are looking for experience, and maturity.

jester77

A problem I see is that developers hit a salary ceiling and the only place to go is into management, and more often than not they are not suitable. So the company ends up getting a bad manager and losing a good developer. That is the biggest issue with software development, there comes a point, from a career and salary pov, where there is nowhere to go.

moycullen14

beauf wrote: »

The problem with project management is you meet so many doing it who have no aptitude for it. I've worked with some great and many dire project managers. They don't have to have a developer background if they have good technical people working with them and they listen to them. So often they don't.

I just don't think that you can add value without technical knowledge. I think the non-technical manager is at a huge loss when their is conflict. How can he/she ever take a contrary view to the technical 'experts'? One area where they seem to get the seniority/experience thing right is medicine with the formal hierarchy between nurse, doctors, consultants, etc.

beauf wrote: »

The issue with development is you always need to be learning new tech and working on projects using it. So skillsets and experience. If you have that I don't think it matters what age you are. But that does take time, and time is what younger people generally have more off. Less commitments outside of work etc. If you are older and can spend time working on projects and new tech then it shouldn't be an issue.

A lot of these articles are from people and places with a vested interest in keeping salaries low, and hours long. So don't take them at face value.

Many of the places I've worked are looking for experience, and maturity.

If you have the interest, you'll find the time. The biggest problem I see with people is that they get a bit bored with it all. Hard to get excited about the next technical revolution when you've seen 5 or 6 'game changing' technologies in the past. Also, I wonder if the brain slows down a bit too, making it difficult to learn new tricks?

Sparks

moycullen14 wrote: »

If you have the interest, you'll find the time.

I've had to rewrite this a few times to avoid the expletives.
But I'm guessing you don't have a young family and either don't know or have forgotten how little free time even one toddler leaves you with if you want to have enough sleep at night to be functional in work.
There will be years in your career when you just aren't going to have that time you're talking about when outside of work. Which is why when you chose jobs, the attitude of the company to CPD will be so critical during those years.
It does get better after a while and you can start finding time again - but you shouldn't ever take it for granted and shouldn't replicate the meme that it's easy to find the time and that the company shouldn't have to worry about it because that hurts everyone else in the end.

CreepingDeath

jester77 wrote: »

A problem I see is that developers hit a salary ceiling and the only place to go is into management, and more often than not they are not suitable. So the company ends up getting a bad manager and losing a good developer. That is the biggest issue with software development, there comes a point, from a career and salary pov, where there is nowhere to go.

+1

There's typically a branching point where you can go to the dark side into management or the lesser opportunities in technical architecture.
The problem with architecture is that you're typically client facing then, and developers tend to tell the truth too much !

An article I read recently said that programmers can be too qualified.
At some stage, there's a depreciating return on improving your coding skills, and you need to focus on your soft skills like team leading/building, building up your public profile in the company, taking on additional responsibilities, project management, business skills etc.

beauf

moycullen14 wrote: »

I just don't think that you can add value without technical knowledge. I think the non-technical manager is at a huge loss when their is conflict. How can he/she ever take a contrary view to the technical 'experts'? One area where they seem to get the seniority/experience thing right is medicine with the formal hierarchy between nurse, doctors, consultants, etc.

Something wrong with a project structure if you don't have a technical lead, or lead programmer making those decisions.

moycullen14 wrote: »

If you have the interest, you'll find the time. The biggest problem I see with people is that they get a bit bored with it all. Hard to get excited about the next technical revolution when you've seen 5 or 6 'game changing' technologies in the past. Also, I wonder if the brain slows down a bit too, making it difficult to learn new tricks?

The brain slows down after 20yrs old.

But then again you don't want someone who jumps to every new direction constantly. Thats not good either. With experience you look before you leap.

Sparks

beauf wrote: »

The brain slows down after 20yrs old.

Oh not this chestnut.
It's (a) wrong and (b) looking at the wrong thing anyway. Check out the latest research on the age profile of nobel prize winners for example and then google fluid and crystallised intelligence.
To say older brains aren't as fast off the mark or as creative is just to say you don't know enough about how aging affects the brain and creativity.

beauf

jester77 wrote: »

A problem I see is that developers hit a salary ceiling and the only place to go is into management, and more often than not they are not suitable. So the company ends up getting a bad manager and losing a good developer. That is the biggest issue with software development, there comes a point, from a career and salary pov, where there is nowhere to go.

Thats true.

But IT is no different from a lot of other industries in this regard. The salary point at which it happens is different though.

Also as in any industry you get a lot of people, perhaps the majority who see a job as a job and have no interest outside of that. They don't really care what they switch to.

beauf

Sparks wrote: »

Oh not this chestnut.
It's (a) wrong and (b) looking at the wrong thing anyway. Check out the latest research on the age profile of nobel prize winners for example and then google fluid and crystallised intelligence.
To say older brains aren't as fast off the mark or as creative is just to say you don't know enough about how aging affects the brain and creativity.

Oh I agree. It a dead end completely. I was taking it literally to highlight how ridiculous it is. Logans run etc.

Sparks

beauf

Lol exactly.

ChRoMe

CreepingDeath wrote: »

+1

.
The problem with architecture is that you're typically client facing then, and developers tend to tell the truth too much !

The socially inept ones, yes. If you have been in development long enough to be an architect and you still don't know how to deal in client facing situations, thats a huge red flag against you.

DublinWriter

Software development is a complete dead end, career wise.

If you're that rare mix of someone who is technically savvy and client focused, then IT middle management will never trust you enough to progress.

Consider most current I.T. Managers/CIOs. Most started as programmers and were promoted beyond their ability into roles where they had to motivate and lead people. Living proof of 'The Peter Principal'.

Now go one step further and consider 'The Dilbert Principal'. It states that those who make it into middle management and beyond were basically incompetent at their original technical roles. Have a goo around you and tell me that this isn't a truism.

Developers are becoming more and more debased as professionals and shunned in favour of BAs and Architects, the vast majority of the latter I've worked with whom I'd consider complete BS artists bordering on at least self-delusion and at worst downright fraudsters.

beauf

Thats not been my experience at all. I've seen the best developers in a company get promoted. Some are good managers and some aren't. being good at one thing doesn't mean your good at the other.

ChRoMe

DublinWriter wrote: »

If you're that rare mix of someone who is technically savvy and client focused, then IT middle management will never trust you enough to progress.

Funny, my experience has been the complete opposite. Being good at client facing and technically skilled has rapidly promoted me ahead of my peers.

TrueDub

DublinWriter wrote: »

Software development is a complete dead end, career wise.

If you're that rare mix of someone who is technically savvy and client focused, then IT middle management will never trust you enough to progress.

Consider most current I.T. Managers/CIOs. Most started as programmers and were promoted beyond their ability into roles where they had to motivate and lead people. Living proof of 'The Peter Principal'.

Now go one step further and consider 'The Dilbert Principal'. It states that those who make it into middle management and beyond were basically incompetent at their original technical roles. Have a goo around you and tell me that this isn't a truism.

Developers are becoming more and more debased as professionals and shunned in favour of BAs and Architects, the vast majority of the latter I've worked with whom I'd consider complete BS artists bordering on at least self-delusion and at worst downright fraudsters.

Absolutely none of this is true. Some companies are better than others, but in general software dev is an active career path and if you're worth promoting to a management position and that's right for you as a career choice, you'll succeed.

And it's "principle", not "principal", they're different words with different meanings. Sorry, I know it's petty, but it really bothers me - most software devs like precision in language.

Raging_Ninja

TrueDub wrote: »

Absolutely none of this isAnd it's "principle", not "principal", they're different words with different meanings. Sorry, I know it's petty, but it really bothers me - most software devs like precision in language.

Loy of the devs I know don't care about spelling. Even I've given up.

beauf

They must be a joy to work with. Shudder.

Sparks

There's a reason why, when a dev asks what language they should study next, the first answer that comes to mind is usually English...

Tar.Aldarion

I saw one spelling mistake in one of our directories and i'm still annoyed about it :pac:
As for OPs question of being too old, i know somebody in their 30s that started..and somebody in their 40s. Both happily working away in it now.
I'm not sure what the salary cap for s/w developers is but i guess you have to focus on adding non-common value to your skill set at that stage.

oscarBravo

I don't get how some software developers don't feel the need to use proper syntax and grammar, for reasons that really ought to be self-evident.

Trojan

I can forgive spelling and grammar errors from under-12s, non-native speakers, and the occasional person clearly using a phone keyboard.

All the rest, I Judge.

The Corinthian

All careers are dead ends if you don't pay attention to them.

As you grow older, in any career, two things happen:

• Your physical and social circumstances change. You are less able (and willing) to work the aforementioned 80 hour weeks and your salary expectations increase (you may well have a family to support, after all). In some countries, company pension contributions jump after a certain age too, which also makes you more expensive to them, and thus less attractive to hire.
• Your skills and experience expand. Your estimates become far more accurate. You can draw from years of experience to be able to solve problems almost instantly, because you've seen it all before. You have cross-discipline knowledge of the business that juniors are completely ignorant of.

The first makes you less attractive to an employer and so needs to be countered by the second if you want anyone to still want to hire you. In this regard, there's a lot of developers out there who don't seem to put much effort in their careers and fail to offer any incentives to any potential employers to make up for the inevitable disincentives that come with age.

Then there is the reality of business; you only need one Sargent to run a group of newly minted privates out of boot camp. Younger developers are less experienced, make more mistakes and take longer to code something that an experienced experienced developer could do in a fraction of the time.

But they'll still get the job done, will put in the overtime with hardly a murmur and cost a lot less - at most, all they need is one experienced senior developer or team leader to guide and monitor several of them.

So you need fewer senior developers, which means some are redundant for the work they used to do. Where does that leave them?

1. Cross-training. Possibly the most common route is that they become project managers, business analysts, architects, CTO, DW or BI experts and so on. There's plenty of incentive for this, not least that the salaries tend to be much higher.
2. Expertise. They're fortunate enough to latch onto one long-lived specific technology and accumulate an unassailable expertise in it. This means that if you want to develop something really, really complicated in it, you can't use more junior developers and you have to go to an expert and pay the big bucks.
3. Legacy Development. This is like expertise for developers who were not fortunate enough to latch onto one long-lived specific technology, but one that will still have systems in use, perhaps for decades to come, that'll need maintenance.

So, unless you want to essentially stop being a pure developer at some stage in your career (the first option above), you need to constantly keep an eye on your career and build up an expertise in something that makes you difficult, if not impossible, to replace with a 25 year old who'll just take longer to do what you do (yet still work out cheaper).

durkin33

As someone nearing the dreaded 40 ( that went fast!) cross training worked out for me.

Started in C/C++,VB, .Net then went to database development. Found I really enjoyed the DB world and am now a lead Business Intelligence Developer. Which, IMHO, is still a true developer role.

It's always best to align your skills with an internal business need and then you have a chance of protecting yourself position from outsourcing. Senior management's view where I work ( in a Healthcare Multinational) is that all they need is a credit card to establish software as a service in the cloud. I always counter the argument stating short term value is gained but not long term.

You can either compete with external suppliers or collaborate with them.
IT people ( we have to) need to learn how to market themselves as a business within a business in order to gain buy in for their projects. Need to be seen/measured as adding value to the bottom line.

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

Younger developers are less experienced, make more mistakes and take longer to code something that an experienced experienced developer could do in a fraction of the time.

Two words come to mind when reading that:

Technical debt.

yawhat!

Probably the best career you can have at the moment.

And No you won't be discriminated against because of your age. Some employers might prefer someone that is older. You will only be starting in graduate roles obviously at around 25K to 30k and you will need good grades in your college exams and perhaps a masters.

The Corinthian

ChRoMe wrote: »

Two words come to mind when reading that:

Technical debt.

True, but you'd be thinking like a programmer, not a business person, and guess who controls the purse strings?

For example, imagine a project is composed of six modules. You have four weeks to complete it. You can hire either junior or senior developers.

Senior developers cost 60k per year, but are only willing to do a maximum of 50 hours per week. One can complete a module in 200 hours.

Junior developers cost only 30k per year, but are willing to do a maximum of 90 hours per week. One can complete a module in 300 hours, at a quality level of, say, 60% that of a senior developer.

Six senior developers will get the job done on time. Annual salary bill 360k (28k for the duration of the project).
Five junior developers will get the same job done on time. Annual salary bill 150k (12k for the duration of the project).
Even if the junior developers only did 50 hour weeks, it still works out cheaper (Nine of them with a total bill of 270k - 21k for the duration of the project).

Of course the junior developers will still end up producing a software product at 60% the quality of the senior developers, but to both the software house and the client, this is very often acceptable, because of the salary savings, which translate to savings in billables.

Now while the above is a rather simplistic model, it's really meant only to demonstrate the kind of choices that employers and their clients make. And these choices have an impact on the resources that are ultimately employed.

The Corinthian

yawhat! wrote: »

And No you won't be discriminated against because of your age.

I'm afraid you're wrong. I've seen it happen and been present in HR meetings where it is actively discussed.

ChRoMe

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, but you'd be thinking like a programmer, not a business person, and guess who controls the purse strings?

For example, imagine a project is composed of six modules. You have four weeks to complete it. You can hire either junior or senior developers.

Senior developers cost 60k per year, but are only willing to do a maximum of 50 hours per week. One can complete a module in 200 hours.

Junior developers cost only 30k per year, but are willing to do a maximum of 90 hours per week. One can complete a module in 300 hours, at a quality level of, say, 60% that of a senior developer.

Six senior developers will get the job done on time. Annual salary bill 360k (28k for the duration of the project).
Five junior developers will get the same job done on time. Annual salary bill 150k (12k for the duration of the project).
Even if the junior developers only did 50 hour weeks, it still works out cheaper (Nine of them with a total bill of 270k - 21k for the duration of the project).

Of course the junior developers will still end up producing a software product at 60% the quality of the senior developers, but to both the software house and the client, this is very often acceptable, because of the salary savings, which translate to savings in billables.

Now while the above is a rather simplistic model, it's really meant only to demonstrate the kind of choices that employers and their clients make. And these choices have an impact on the resources that are ultimately employed.

No, you are conflating a client/employer where software is a cost centre rather than revenue generator. Clients/employers who understand the implications will not go the route you use. You also seem to be assuming that development is the whole cost, those margins will be completely destroyed by support costs if its done incorrectly. The project doesn't end once its shipped.

Sparks

ChRoMe wrote: »

No, you are conflating a client/employer where software is a cost centre rather than revenue generator. Clients/employers who understand the implications will not go the route you use.

Yeah, but it's not enough to understand them, they have to care enough about them to act on them.
Example - management takes a decision that earns profits this quarter and next quarter, but which causes such losses in the third quarter that the company goes out of business. To you or me, that'd be stupid. To an executive who takes his bonus and quits half-way through the second quarter, that's a great decision especially if he knows it will ruin the company in the third quarter, and a year later he'll be earning even more money elsewhere because he drove up profits before his successor destroyed the company...

Sparks

BTW, the real problem with TC's quick example is that it ignores long-term support for the project. So it works with things like offshoring companies (where, gosh, this actually is almost exactly what they do), but bites hard on any company in the services sector (just read the news, you'll find examples of this happening btw).

ChRoMe

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, but it's not enough to understand them, they have to care enough about them to act on them.
Example - management takes a decision that earns profits this quarter and next quarter, but which causes such losses in the third quarter that the company goes out of business. To you or me, that'd be stupid. To an executive who takes his bonus and quits half-way through the second quarter, that's a great decision especially if he knows it will ruin the company in the third quarter, and a year later he'll be earning even more money elsewhere because he drove up profits before his successor destroyed the company...

Malicious people can do malicious things.. thats true of any situation.

ChRoMe

Sparks wrote: »

BTW, the real problem with TC's quick example is that it ignores long-term support for the project. So it works with things like offshoring companies (where, gosh, this actually is almost exactly what they do), but bites hard on any company in the services sector (just read the news, you'll find examples of this happening btw).

Quite, you must have missed my edit. He is talking how I'd expect a consultant to

yawhat!

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong. I've seen it happen and been present in HR meetings where it is actively discussed.

Depends on the company so!

The Corinthian

ChRoMe wrote: »

No, you are conflating a client/employer where software is a cost centre rather than revenue generator. Clients/employers who understand the implications will not go the route you use. You also seem to be assuming that development is the whole cost, those margins will be completely destroyed by support costs if its done incorrectly. The project doesn't end once its shipped.

The purpose of the example was not to be accurate, but to illustrate that business decisions are often made that would run counter-intuitive to how a good developer would think.

And unfortunately, both at the employer and client levels, they will take these routes, more often than I care to think.

Sparks wrote: »

BTW, the real problem with TC's quick example is that it ignores long-term support for the project.

There's plenty of real-life scenarios where a client would be willing to pay more later for a cheaper deal in the short-term; that the client's project owner is counting on being promoted/moving by the time the long-term costs come to roost or that budget is limited in the short term and so the client is willing to deal with the consequences, otherwise they'll never get to market.

Let's face it, lease purchase wouldn't exist if people always really cared about the long term costs.

ChRoMe wrote: »

Quite, you must have missed my edit. He is talking how I'd expect a consultant to

Meaoo! I'll consider a fitting reply next time I'm on the beach...

Actually, I'm talking how I've seen business owners and executives do so. It's not nice, but as I said at the start, they're the one's who hold the purse strings that commission such work.

srsly78

Trojan wrote: »

I can forgive spelling and grammar errors from under-12s, non-native speakers, and the occasional person clearly using a phone keyboard.

All the rest, I Judge.

Me too.. But maybe someday you will end up in a situation like mine... My boss is a very experienced native english developer, and he writes excellent code. However, he is mildly dyslexic - so I constantly come across spelling and grammar errors!! I have to rage silently about this, and my ocd forces me to fix the spelling in each file I touch It's pretty funny, because he is the ultimate code style nazi - and has forced me to adopt good habits.

Sparks

ChRoMe wrote: »

Malicious people can do malicious things.. thats true of any situation.

Yes, but in business, it's rewarded. Most of the time anyway. Which means that rational logical argument is usually ignored and you get things like Nokia taking on Windows Phone right after releasing the N9, which was widely hailed as the best mobile on the market when released.

moycullen14

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong. I've seen it happen and been present in HR meetings where it is actively discussed.

So let me get this straight. You were in a meeting, HR were there, they were determining IT hiring policy .... and you didn't shoot the whole bloody lot of them? What happened?

moycullen14

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, but you'd be thinking like a programmer, not a business person, and guess who controls the purse strings?

For example, imagine a project is composed of six modules. You have four weeks to complete it. You can hire either junior or senior developers.

Senior developers cost 60k per year, but are only willing to do a maximum of 50 hours per week. One can complete a module in 200 hours.

Junior developers cost only 30k per year, but are willing to do a maximum of 90 hours per week. One can complete a module in 300 hours, at a quality level of, say, 60% that of a senior developer.

Six senior developers will get the job done on time. Annual salary bill 360k (28k for the duration of the project).
Five junior developers will get the same job done on time. Annual salary bill 150k (12k for the duration of the project).
Even if the junior developers only did 50 hour weeks, it still works out cheaper (Nine of them with a total bill of 270k - 21k for the duration of the project).

Of course the junior developers will still end up producing a software product at 60% the quality of the senior developers, but to both the software house and the client, this is very often acceptable, because of the salary savings, which translate to savings in billables.

Now while the above is a rather simplistic model, it's really meant only to demonstrate the kind of choices that employers and their clients make. And these choices have an impact on the resources that are ultimately employed.

And they'll end up f**king it up. Nothing surer. I have no doubt that some companies act like this but they are not and never will be successful.

If you have the misfortune to work somewhere where IT strategy is predicated solely on cost then my advice would be leave, now. Someday they will discover someone cheaper than you and then you'll be turfed out. (Outsourcing, anyone?)

pgmcpq

Interesting topic, and one close to my heart.

I'm not in Ireland so I cannot speak to the specifics there but generally it is harder to make a good living in software now compared to 20 years ago.
I am probably one of the youngest guys aground who worked primarily in mainframe assembler (yes, I am that old!).

So much basic technology is in "frameworks", be it jvms, jvm based frameworks, the "browser as operating system", mobile frameworks ....that it takes little skill to knock together a perfectly respectable application. Great in terms of technical development, great in terms of breaking down the effective monopolies of e.g IBM in the 1980s, but not so great in terms of leveraging software skills to make a living.

The open source movement has really changed the landscape. No longer can anyone expect to write a "payroll" system - it's been done - multiple times ! So the days of the generalist is over. Career development now means focusing on expertise in specific technical areas. Otherwise programming jobs will eventually become gloried burger flipping and paid appropriately.

I've been in Voip for the last 8 years, and now I see the end of the road in terms of being able to make a living as the market is saturating now.

Hiring is tough. I've found it hard to interview effectively. Many of the interviews really are geared to the teaching methods in colleges these days (I bombed the technical interviews at Google). It's hard for the 40+ guys to do it. I have spent a fair amount of time in small companies and startups. This recent article is a pretty fair reflection of my experience http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/silicon-valleys-youth-problem.html?_r=0

Reading the earlier comments. Look, I work hard, but no - I have a life outside the office, I do not go home and work on my own projects (I see ads asking to see your home projects which is funny as the the same companies will have you sign away rights to anything you develop while in their employment anyway). Much as I enjoy working with 20 years olds - I don't want to spend my weekend paintballing with them !

Outsourcing. It's here to stay. I'm in the US - so to me Ireland is one of the places my work might get outsourced to !! Either way it pays to focus on areas that companies consider central to their business - lots of companies have been stung in outsourcing core technologies but will continue to outsource the more peripheral stuff.

Is it a dead end career ? If you expect to make a living purely as a technologist - you better be damn good. Otherwise you need to develop a expertise outside software (where I am most of the financial firms hire maths graduates who can code a bit and figure they can train them to program rather than hire computer science graduates ). tbh, most 16 year old can probably code faster than me.

Certainly you can no longer take even a CS degree and expect it to guarantee a decent living anymore.