|
|
|
|
|
by linkregister
3202 days ago
|
|
> In every single industry and craft, those with more work experience are typically paid more than whose with less. This isn't true. Those who do more with their work experience are paid more. We all know engineers who have been at the same company for over a decade, but have practically nothing to show for it. There is an enormous disparity between engineers. There's a reason why Google and Facebook allow engineers to stay Senior Engineers for an entire career: most don't actually progress beyond a certain point. Jeff Dean and Rob Pike aren't good because they've been programming for a long time. They're good because they've developed their organizational skills, architectural skills, communication skills, and excellent public speaking (this is vital as a tech lead and higher). None of those can be developed by programming on something cool on the weekend. None of what you said actually disputes my statement; we both value experience. I'm just trying to communicate to you that extra hours programming at home might not be as intrinsically valuable as you might think. |
|
My point was if I had to pick one broad generalization - "value increases as hours increase", "value is independent of hours", "value decreases as hours increase" - it certainly makes sense to pick the first. Extra hours are more likely to make you more valuable than to make you equally or less valuable.
This was what I was replying to
> I find it interesting that HN commenters frequently take it for granted that someone who tinkered with programming at an early age and do side projects is a better performer at work.
Thats why I do take it for granted (on average) that people who do side projects do better than those who don't. With 2 equal resumes I would confidently pick the one who started programming early. Nothing is certain when generalizing like that obviously, but then again no signal ever in any interview is a guarantee of future work performance.