[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.

[qsera]

>doctors would have said something similar for their profession

Actually that applies to doctors. A doctor who is not curious and is not willing to do learn/research on their own initiative is only a marketing hand of pharma.

But it is quite hard for doctors to do any real research independently. They can't really do experiments on real people...

Software is really special.

[menaerus]

So a software engineer who is not curious enough to invest 15+ hours daily over the course of years is just a marketing hand of ... what ... programming language of their choice or company they work for?

Don't get me wrong. I am that guy, who probably over-invested into the development of his skills but I don't think it's a normal thing to expect.

[qsera]

>So a software engineer who is not curious enough to invest 15+ hours daily over the course of years is just a marketing hand of ..

That does not apply here. Because more often than not, we don't prescribe products/services that our clients must go out and buy, without exception.

>it's a normal thing to expect.

It is not a normal thing to expect because in other fields there are few people who can afford to do that. So an employer cannot really pick someone from that pool.

But in software, it is possible if one choose to do it. So the pool is a lot bigger, so it becomes feasible for an employer to pick someone from there, instead of picking from I-am-only-as-good-as-I-am-paid-to-be pool..