upvote
I've simply not seen this at all. As someone with 10 YOE who was in the job market from November to early April going for senior software engineer roles, quality and architecture seemed to be the thing every org cared about. The bar not only to secure and interview, but to get hired was unbelievably high.

Some of the interviews I were getting were at AI startups and all of them were either doing architectural questions or multiple rounds of architectural, behavioural and leetcode problems.

Only one of the orgs was hiring junior engineers and the director of technology mentioned to me he didn't want to as they were "incapable", but it was a quota given to him by the board.

I also got told by multiple recruitment agents that I wasn't experienced enough, and some hiring managers were demanding 15 YOE for a senior role.

reply
15 YOE, here: Well, I just interviewed between October - Decemeber of last year, and since then, the company I joined has gone full vibe-coding and is changing to AI interviews. So...
reply
If anything, the current era looks like how 1995-2015 was for me.

Back then I was not in the “nitpicker’s radar” yet. I was working in small teams and shipping like crazy, sometimes fixing small bugs literally in seconds.

Things worked, were stable, made money, teams were fun and code and product had quality.

The post-Thoughtworks, post-Uncle-Bob world of 2015-2025 was absolute hell for a maker. It was 100% about performative quality. Everything was verbose and had to be by the book, even when it didn't make sense from an engineering or product point of view.

Different opinions were simply not accepted.

It was the age of bloat, of thousands of dependencies, of nitpicks, of infinite meetings, of quality in paper but not in practice, of doing overtime, of being on a fucking pager, of having CI/CD that took 10 hours to merge, and all the stress it comes with.

I would be totally ok if all those “professional” engineers from that generation were to be replaced with hackers, both old and new.

reply
Nothing you describe is recognisable to me. It just seems like you chose to work at bad places.
reply
That's the crazy thing about criticizing the industry in general: you can't really get away with it without someone calling you incompetent, point blank! :D

What I am describing here is FAANG (two of them) and every startup (two YC) or enterprise (a big Fintech) that copied it.

If you happen to "like it", perhaps it's time to think about accepting how other people don't.

I even prefaced it with "for me".

reply
That was a low effort comment, I agree with you and I downvoted theirs. HN rules specify comments should drive the conversation forward. They used n=1 anecdata and called your employers bad places, oversimplifying the complexities into a simplistic 3 letter word.

Let’s keep the short caustic comments to ourselves people. The world is crazy enough without making other peoples days worse with drivel!

reply
I recognise it from regularly talking with fellow programmers at the local tech meet-ups. At least in my area, the work places with result-oriented policies were and still are in the clear majority, and only big companies with likewise big financial reserves could afford to pursue the economically wasteful route of process-oriented policies.
reply
Come on now. Even I know exactly what he's talking about and I have worked far and beyond all the craze of the real world, having mainly dedicated time to small dev shops in the past 2 decades.
reply
No man, it's because of their poor ability to pick jobs, not because the other commenter was in a different niche or whatever than they are. It's absolutely not possible for 2 people to have a different experience, as there are at most 5 programmers in the entire world.
reply
Or maybe you are part of the problem they are describing.
reply
You have described exactly the situation of almost all of my clients. And in some way it is good to see our business model validated as we help steer organisations at this level, also technically. I would only add that the quality of software has improved significantly. From my perspective, the bar for quality at most organisations like this is low, extremely low.
reply
Companies that don't fall under that rubric are established and have actual money on the line if their software shits the bed. Software that handles actual logistics and transactions can't be treated to lots of LLM updates without some serious problems arising. Startups and B2B ones especially have always been cheap, cut corners, screwed up and apologized later, and most importantly just created hype and fluff to get investment that's rarely spent on building solid foundations. There's not much crap AI is writing for them now, as code or marketing material, that wasn't already just as junky when it was written by humans. That's been the mutually agreed upon game that startups and VC have played since the 90s. LLMs just distill the douchery and the flawed logic, and it's pleasant to watch their artifacts go down in flames.
reply
Most of the software engineering field ain't no startups, however distorted the most vocal representation on HN could be.

Neither are they code sweat shops churing one quick templated eshop/company site after another (knew some people in that space, even 20 years ago 1 individual churned out easily 2-3 full sites in a week depending on complexity).

Typical companies, this includes banks btw, see these llms as production boosters, to cut off expensive saas offerings and do more inhouse, rather than head count cutting tool par excellence. Not everybody is as dumb and pennypinching-greedy as ie amazon is. There, quality of output is still massively more important than volume of it or speed. CTOs are not all bunch of shortsighted idiots. But these dont make catchy headlines, do they.

reply
deleted
reply
i feel like i saw the same thing! was is this (AsianDadEnergy channel)?

https://youtu.be/VeMA9WGKxOg?si=hV1F84P_-U6k9oJi

reply