- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
To be fair, most never could. I’ve been hiring junior devs for decades now, and all the ones straight out of university barely had any coding skills .
Its why I stopped looking at where they studied, I always first check their hobbies. if one of the hobbies is something nerdy and useless, tinkering with a raspberry or something, that indicates to me it’s someone who loves coding and probably is already reasonably good at it
I am not a professional coder, just a hobbyist, but I am increasingly digging into Cybersecurity concepts.
And even as an “amature Cybersecurity” person, everything about what you describe, and LLM coders, terrifies me, because that shit is never going to have any proper security methodology implemented.
Im in uni learning to code right now but since I’m a boomer i only spin up oligarch bots every once in a while to check for an issue that I would have to ask the teacher. It’s far more important for me to understand fundies than it is to get a working program. But that is only because ive gotten good at many other skills and realize that fundies are fundamental for a reason.
This isn’t a new thing. Dilution of “programmer” and “computer” education has been going on for a long time. Everyone with an IT certificate is an engineer th se days.
For millennials, a “dev” was pretty much anyone with reasonable intelligence who wanted to write code - it is actually very easy to learn the basics and fake your way into it with no formal education. Now we are even moving on from that to where a “dev” is anyone who can use an AI. “Prompt Engineering.”
“Prompt Engineer” makes a little vomit appear in the back of my mouth.
I could have been a junior dev that could code. I learned to do it before ChatGPT. I just never got the job.
This post is literally an ad for AI tools.
No, thanks. Call me when they actually get good. As it stands, they only offer marginally better autocomplete.
I should probably start collecting dumb AI suggestions and gaslighting answers to show the next time I encounter this topic…
It’s actually complaining about AI, tho.
There are at least four links leading to AI tools in this page. Why would you link something when you complain about it?
Oh lol I thought it was a text post, I didn’t even click the link and just read the post description.
that s the point of being junior. Then problems show up and they are forcing them to learn to solve them
The problem is not only the coding but the thinking. The AI revolution will give birth to a lot more people without critical thinking and problem solving capabilities.
apart from that, learning programming went from something one does out of calling, to something one does to get a job. The percentage of programmers that actually like coding is going down, so on average they’re going to be worse
This is true for all of IT. I love IT - I’ve been into computer for 30+ years. I run a small homelab, it’ll always be a hobby and a career. But yeah, for more and more people it’s just a job.
That’s the point.
Along with censorship.
I could barely code when I landed my job and now I’m a senior dev. It’s saying a plumber’s apprentice can’t plumb - you learn on the job.
You’re not learning anything if Copilot is doing it for you. That’s the point.
That’s true, it can only get you so far. I’m sure we all started by Frankenstein-ing stack overflow answers together until we had to actually learn the “why”
Of course they don’t. Hiring junior devs for their hard skills is a dumb proposition. Hire for their soft skills, intellectual curiosity, and willingness to work hard and learn. There is no substitute for good training and experience.
Has anyone else clicked the chat.com url in the article …
To me, I feel like this is a problem perpetuated by management. I see it on the system administration side as well – they don’t care if people understand why a tool works; they just want someone who can run it. If there’s no free thought the people are interchangeable and easily replaced.
I often see it farmed out to vendors when actual thought is required, and it’s maddening.
i always found this to be upsetting as an IT tech at a former company - when a network or server had an issue and i was sent to resolve it, it was a “just reboot it” fix, which never kept the problem from recurring and bringing the server down at 07:00 the next Monday.
the limitations on the questions i could ask hurt that SLA more than any network switch’s memory leak ever did, and i felt as if my expertise meant nothing as a result.
They never could
Exactly, the jr dev that could write anything useful is a rare gem. Boot camps cranking out jr dev by the dozens every couple of months didn’t help the issue. Talent needs cultivation, and since every tech company has been cutting back lately, they stopped cultivating and started sniping talent from each other. Not hard given the amount of layoffs lately. So now we have jr devs either unable to find a place to refine them, or getting hired by people who just want to save money and don’t know that you need a senior or two to wrangle them. Then chat gpt comes along and gives the illusion of sr dev advice, telling them how to write the wrong thing better, no one to teach them which tool is the right one for the job.
Our industry is in kind of a fucked state and will be for a while. Get good at cleaning up the messes that will be left behind and that will keep you fed for the next decade.
Not that this is very unique to the field, junior anything usually needs at least 6 months to get to a productive level.
Kind of wish we went with more tradesmen-like titles. Apprentice, journeyman, master. Master software developer sounds like we have honed our craft. Junior/senior just seems like a length of time.
It generally is a length of time. Your title depends on the years on the job.
Very “back in my day” energy.
I do not support AI but programming is about solving problems and not writing code.
If we are concentrating on tool, no developers and use punched card as well. Is that a bad thing?
Not in any way a new phenomenon, there’s a reason fizzbuzz was invented, there’s been a steady stream of CS graduates who can’t code their way out of a wet paper bag ever since the profession hit the mainstream.
Actually fucking interview your candidates, especially if you’re sourcing candidates from a country with for-profit education and/or rote learning cultures, both of which suck when it comes to failing people who didn’t learn anything. No BS coding tests go for “explain this code to me” kind of stuff, worst case they can understand code but suck at producing it, that’s still prime QA material right there.
We do two “code challenges”:
- Very simple, many are done in 5 min; this just weeds out the incompetent applicants, and 90% of the code is written (i.e. simulate working in an existing codebase)
- Ambiguous requirements, the point is to ask questions, and we actually have different branches depending on assumptions they made (to challenge their assumptions); i.e. simulate building a solution with product team
The first is in the first round, the second is in the technical interview. Neither are difficult, and we provide any equations they’ll need.
It’s much more important that they can reason about requirements than code something quick, because life won’t give you firm requirements, and we don’t want a ton of back and forth with product team if we can avoid it, so we need to catch most of that at the start.
In short, we’re looking for actual software engineers, not code monkeys.
Those are good approaches, I would note that the “90% is written” one is mostly about code comprehension, not writing (as in: Actually architect something), and the requirement thing is a thing that you should, IMO, learn as a junior, it’s not a prerequisite. It needs a lot of experience, and often domain knowledge new candidates have no chance of having. But, then, throwing such stuff at them and then judging them by their approach, not end result, should be fair.
The main question I ask myself, in general, is “can this person look at code from different angles”. Somewhat like rotating a cube in your mind’s eye if you get what I mean. And it might even be that they’re no good at it, but they demonstrate the ability when talking about coffee making. People who don’t get lost when you’re talking about cash registers having a common queue having better overall latency than cash registers with individual queues. Just as a carpenter would ask someone “do you like working with your hands”, the question is “do you like to rotate implication structures in your mind”.
judging them by their approach, not end result, should be fair.
Yup, that’s the approach. It’s okay if they don’t finish, I want to know how they approach the problem. We absolutely adjust our decision based on the role.
If they can extend existing code and design a new system (with minimal new code) and ask the right questions, we can work with them.
