[menaerus]

> If you didn't like working with <insert anything>, then you ...

This type of argument can hold for any profession and yet we aren't seeing this pattern much in other white-collar professions. Professors, doctors, economists, mechanical engineers, ... it seems like pretty much everybody made the wrong choice then?

I think this is a wrong way to look at it. OP says that he invested a lot of time into becoming proficient in something that today appears to be very close to part extinction.

I think that the question is legit, and he's likely not the only person asking oneself this question.

My take on the question is ability to adapt and learn new skills. Some will succeed some will fail but staying in status-quo position will certainly more likely lead to a failure rather than the success.

[hncoder12345]

Your first point hits the nail on the head. We are expected to have side projects and to keep up with new things (outside of work) but most other jobs don't have that. I would be okay with my work sending me off for additional training, on company time, but I don't want it to consume the time I have left after work.

[menaerus]

I don't know why but our profession for some reason is different than the others in this respect and people often like to think that this is a norm and if you're not doing it you're not worthwhile. I think it has to do with some interesting psychological effects of people who are generally attracted to this profession but also due to the companies who implemented those mental hacks as a means to attract people who are 100% for it. Leetcode style interviews where you virtually have to spend months to prepare oneself for the interview, even as a senior, is one example of that but I also do remember the age, which was not too long ago, where your resume wouldn't even get a look if you didn't have several open-source repositories/contributions to show. This is in some part even valid as of today.

There are plenty of such examples but both of these imply that you're ready to devote a lot of your extra time, before or after the job, only that you can show you're relevant in the eyes of those who are the decision makers. This normally means that you're single, that you have no kids, family, no other hobbies but programming etc. This works when you're in your 20's and only up to the certain point unless you become a weirdo in your 30's and 40's etc. without any of these.

However, in the age where we are met with the uncertainty, it may become a new normal to devote extra effort in order to be able to remain not competitive but a mere candidate for the job. Some will find the incentive for this extra pain, some will not but I think it won't be easy. Perhaps in 5 years time we will only have "AI applied" engineers developing or specializing their own models for given domains. Writing code as we have it today I think it's already a thing of a past.

[qsera]

> for some reason

I think the reason is quite simple. Software is endlessly configurable. And thus a lot higher chance to get the configuration wrong.

This is what makes it attractive, and makes it hard to get right.

You cannot get good at it without making a ton of mistakes. When companies look for people with a lot of side projects, they are looking at people who already have made such mistakes and learned from them, preferably on their own time and not on paid, companies time.

[menaerus]

That argument would be sound if no other profession existed that is at least comparably complex.

[qsera]

It is not about complexity.

I ll list some attributes of software development that makes it unique.

* No hard rules, textbooks to follow, industry as a whole still make costly mistakes and recovery cycles.

* No easy way to gauge the requirement-fit of the thing you made. Only time will tell.

* Cheap (financially) to practice, make mistakes and learn.

[menaerus]

You're making some strong assumptions about other industries which are incorrect. All of that exists elsewhere and is not so unique to software as you may think. Things are never that simple. Your argument reads more as a justification to the status quo and gatekeeping rather than being objective. I'm sure the doctors would have said something similar for their profession too but it doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Software engineering is a demanding profession but it is not that special as we like to think it is.

[jimbokun]

Software development as a career was born, reached maturity and died in less than 100 years (being generous).

It never had time to develop into a truly professional field like medicine, law or engineering.

[Anamon]

I don't know where you take the idea that it's dead or dying as a discipline. The need for software solutions is clearly bigger than ever and growing. And what I see, even as and especially with LLM coding becoming more prevalent, is a breakneck rapid decline in the quality of delivered software and a downright explosion of security issues and incidents.