[PheonixPharts]

> The rest left tech for good.

This is an important reality check for many people.

I entered tech in 2004, during the immediate aftermath of the dotcom crash. At that time software engineers got paid well, but not insane. Additionally, every software engineer I met was passionate about writing code.

Honestly, around 2019 I was really missing those days. The field has become flooded with people looking for a high paying job with essentially no interest in software or computer science beyond the paycheck it provides. I don't blame people for wanting to make money, but I do miss virtually everyone in the industry being genuinely fascinated with software and programming.

The good news is, if you're the kind of person who would write code even if it paid minimum wage, you'll survive this. People whose book shelves are filled with CS books, who find themselves working on coding problems at night because it's fun, who can't help hacking around with new ideas on the weeked, will very likely continue to work in software. You'll likely make less money, but you'll also have more fun.

Unsurprisingly, in this current market I'm getting paid less but having more fun at work than I've had in nearly a decade.

[drewcoo]

> I entered tech in 2004, during the immediate aftermath of the dotcom crash.

I entered in 1999, when there were plenty of jobs mostly filled with people who liked paychecks a lot more than coding. It was hard to find jobs doing anything hard or nerdy in the sea of webmasters.

I remember working at startups in the mid-late oughts after the bubble burst and the industry was awash in get-rich-quick, gimmicky companies. Those founders had learned the lessons of the dotcom bubble: make your money and get out before it happens again! There was a VC slot-machine for quick, happy exits. And if you don't do well at the slot machine, well you've learned important leadership lessons, so start another startup.

If there was a golden age of nerds, it must have happened before I was in the industry. But, on examination, I'm not sure those actually existed either.

I think it's worth focusing on the work and atmosphere and how makers get stuff done, but I balk at about appeals to former glories. Make Software Great Again? Hmph.

[shrimp_emoji]

Even if it never existed, it should exist. The false description is prescription. M"${foo}"GA!

[nytesky]

I sympathize with your perspective, when most programmers were really nerds was a magical time.

I do wonder if we are indulging in an “eternal September” mindset though.

[anal_reactor]

The times when IT department smelled like pizza, sweat, and Mountain Dew lol

To be honest I don't think we'll ever go back to this. The only reason why this existed was that programming was socially unattractive, so developers self-selected to be people with certain personality characteristics. Once the society recognized the importance of IT jobs, it started pumping all sorts of people into the industry. There's no coming back, unless a) programming becomes a bad career choice again or b) all people get the luxury of working jobs that interest them

[Der_Einzige]

Don't worry, programming remains very unattractive. Where and how one gets their money matters. You can literally watch the "ick" reaction happen within fractions of a second of mentioning to them that one is working as a "software engineer".

I find that if it's not an ick, it's resentment. Normies are catching on that huge amounts of tech bros are "overpaid" (working ~10 hrs a week at a rest and vest retirement home like Microsoft), and they're becoming luddites over the impact of AI in their industries.

They call San Jose "Man Jose" for a reason. Women don't like tech-bros, and it shows.

[zer00eyz]

I have been theorizing that they all get FAANG jobs now.

Free everything, stock options, good pay....

Crush the competition before it gets its feet under it. It isnt that we dont have as many nerds, they are all just "locked up".

[mech422]

I sometimes think FAANGs select for that group... Basically, all they have to offer is the paycheck. Outside of a few 'interesting' departments, most FAANG stuff seems to be the same sort of work you'd get in any other industry. And they make sure to run you thru a gauntlet of interviews for the positions.

I think a lot of the "lifelong geek" crowd just finds more 'interesting' work (for whatever qualifies as 'interesting' to them...) in other companies without jumping thru all the hoops (and for less pay, of course). Lots of startups, niche companies, etc offer challenges that can make up for the lower pay.

[eru]

I used to work at Google (and even Facebook for a very short time). They ain't what they used to be.

[ghaff]

To be somewhat cynical, they're big companies. Big companies have lots of process, layers of management, fiefdoms, etc. etc. Doesn't matter if you're Google, Facebook, or a big bank.

[red-iron-pine]

size matters, but publicly traded matters more.

like sometimes that bureaucracy is a good thing. i remember an uncle who worked for EMC talking to me about being a big company vs. small company person; each has an advantage.

[eru]

> size matters, but publicly traded matters more.

Google has been publicly traded for most of its life, but things have changed over time regardless of that constant.

> like sometimes that bureaucracy is a good thing.

Employed right bureaucracy is one way to scale up processes.

Eg compare (1) keeping the whole state of your project in your head, or (2) in a personal notebook, or (3) on a share whiteboard with post it notes, (4) in Jira tickets.

Depending on the size of your project and organisation, you will find that the increased overhead of the higher-numbered methods might be worth it.

Of course, not all bureaucracy is the same. When I was at Google around 2014-2016 I found that they consistently achieved more benefits results from their bureaucracy at lower overheads than the big banks I used to work at (which weren't actually any bigger than Google).

Bureaucracy gets a bad rep but when done right (and defined broadly enough), it can help a lot.

Another example of bureaucracy done right is distributed version control: it's so convenient (after you get used to it..) that many people even use git on single person projects.

[ghaff]

>size matters, but publicly traded matters more.

It matters some but a very large private company still needs to organize and make money even if there's probably somewhat less immediacy.

>big company vs. small company person; each has an advantage

Yes. Small companies have limitations to what they can achieve even if they're impressive at small scale. And, certainly, software that doesn't involve enterprise sales allows for outsized effect.

But, in general, the level of just do what needs to be done that works at even a 1,000 person company totally breaks down at 10x and certainly 100x that scale. And that probably works well for people who abhor chaos and is anathema for people who sort of want to chart their own path.

[spamizbad]

I think there's a bit of generational shift at play here. Elder-millennial earnestness vs younger millennial/Gen-Z social anxious binary view of things as either "based" or "cringe" (and openly geeking out about stuff definitely fits their "cringe" definition, whereas its endearing to older millennials).

[jacknews]

Any open positions there?