Actually this is bull****. Implying that I'm victimizing you in some way. Jeebus that is just pathetic. All I did was a quote a post of yours. You don't want me to post on TwoPlusTwo right? Wonder how many posters think you can do better thinking you aren't really trying hard at all?

When you are hiring someone, you can come up with a industry standard job description that perfectly encapsulates the current meta for that job, and be incredibly rigid in requirements and responsibilities.

This is where you get stuff on the bad extreme like "10+ years of React/Redux required" when it gets to the recruiting level.

Sometimes there is a good reason for being incredibly specific in both the requirements and responsibilities (almost always when you are going to be billing out this role in some fairly direct way to someone else). This is your PwC and generic MegaCo ookie cutter approach.

When you are a small business and especially when you are a startup, hiring someone using that process is potentially really bad. One, you may not really understand what you need, just that you need someone. Two, you may have challenges that are related but that don't fit into a cookie cutter job description. Three, you want to be able to hire smart and talented people and give then flexibility to figure out what you need to do better.

So what you do is interview humans, figure out what their capabilities are, and you make up a job to give to them. Once jmakin starts, he's going to figure out which of those described things that he's going to need to focus on more. I see it as a list of current challenges that someone who is a captain of a boat and has dealt with high pressure situations can thrive in.

We are humans. We are adaptable. We learn. We improve. In the future if you are hiring an AI to do a job then sure, make sure the responsibilities are perfectly cookie cutter. But so long as you are hiring humans, you'll be creating a more successful environment if you hire based on what you need and what you think they are capable of. Just because this job description isn't some cookie cutter job description reminiscent of what you did out of school does not set off warning bells. It is exactly the opposite of that. Especially the fact they waited 4 weeks to get back to him. They thought deeply about what he could help them with, and what they needed, and they got creative and made a unique role for it.

It's hiring a person and not a role and I've done it many times.

Adios, what I meant was I think you're a conservative, misogynistic piece of **** and I view everything you say through that filter, however, no one in here cares about that so I try and not let it color my comments on your posts.

Yeah, I can see that. It's not really falsifiable though without making judgements about Jmakin that I have way of making. I can see why you thought I was attacking him.

I wouldn't say I thought you were attacking him directly or anything. But to me, you were attacking what it means to be human.

You may have poured more of yourself into your job ads than I've seen out here in Portland...

You're both crazy people

Hahahha +1. Y’all need to get a grip of yourselves!

I'm not sure what you mean here - do you want to elaborate?

I'm closer to your side on this but this seems a little disproportionate, no?

I know the terms are used interchangeably and there’s a little debate but this answer made sense:

When it comes to the topic of hiring/firing/building people/etc I'm liable to completely go off the deep end.

I don't know why I feel so strongly about this but increasing human potential is the thing deep down I care the most about with no close second.

I have never heard of a tech company that distinguishes between engineers, developers, programmers like that. TBH that quote is kind of garbage. Its distinction between developer and engineer is essentially nonexistent.

The difference seems academic at best. I mean I think it's more or less true - when I was in college you could get a "software engineering" degree and it was not the same as a computer science degree, but the terms get used more or less indiscriminately in hiring AFAICT.

my title ends in engineer which is bs since all I do is use other smarter people's tools to make web apps. Of course "software engineer" is the easiest answer to the "what do you do" question right?

I looked at a ton of sources and forum debates and none really majorly disagreed much that on some level they’re different, just seemed kind of relevant to the discussion we’ve been having here

In any case it led me down a rabbit hole and i ended up buying $100 of “must read” software books last night

I completely agree. I would far rather hire someone bright with lots of potential than someone who meets a rigid "X years development using language Y."

My own route into programming has been slightly roundabout, via a PhD in maths and followed by qualifying as an actuary. So I strongly disagree with very rigid approaches to hiring.

this is the most ridiculous "style rules" i have ever seen for any class, ever:

i kept the original formatting to emphasize what a buffoon this proff is.

this "style" is just ******ed. Having multiple excessive function calls to keep a main function down to 5 lines obfuscates the code, it doesn't make it easier to read.

I get that smaller functions are good. But this style guide is written a person who wants to micro-manage every line of code. I wouldn't even think about doing something like this to clueless offshore devs who need constant hand-holding.

you can "cheat" by making some function call another several functions that returns a value and you assign it to a variable.

so you can make 1 line be worth 40 lines of code plus 10+ function calls. that's not readable at all or very kind to the stack.

i can't think of a more annoying thing than to trace through 5 functions to find out what the **** they did in a variable assignment statement.

Smaller functions is a great goal to shoot for, and that's how you accomplish it. But absolutes suck. And 5 lines seems way too short.

I picture some poor programmer spending half a day trying to figure out how to break up a function that he could write with 10 lines of code in a minute.

i like small functions too, so i can test and make sure they work 100% the way i want them to so I rarely if ever need to look at them again, but 5 lines is lol. 10 lines would be ok for this class

Lol I wonder if this is the same class and professor I took. 6 unit course?

lol