How does experience compare to knowledge in the role of a software engineer?
Follow the CodeNewbie Org and #codenewbie for more discussions and online camaraderie!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Top comments (10)
Where this becomes massively noticeable is in the gap between leadership and folks on production teams.
The decades of experience of a person in leadership means nothing if they have lost touch with what the day to day looks like for the production team.
This results in tooling or processes that are stubborn and outdated, directed by the folks at the top who don't have the ability to trust their senior production colleagues to make those decisions for betterment of the team.
As someone who is both inexperienced and unknowledgeable when it comes to being a software engineer, I'd say both are important. You need knowledge to know how to implement your ideas, and experience to know what ideas to implement.
Since I am a newbie into this arena I have no fight in this arena, yet I'll take something I read on an article that stuck with me for when I do have a fight in the arena.
Just my two cents.
To flip the question would you hire the experience vs. knowledge or an entry-level person that has no bad habits and baggage that you train to write clean and effective code?
In my experience (no pun intended), a lot of engineers underestimate the power of knowledge. People appear to be more inclined to, say, learn a new framework rather than pick up some foundational knowledge they wouldn't know how to apply immediately. What I think is while accumulating experience gives you power, accumulating knowledge gives you superpowers, but it's a slow and painful process.
I agree that fundamental knowledge is key to understand both problems and solutions in a deeper way. This deeper knowledge let's you apply what you learn on one occasion to the next problem you face, but this only comes with both knowledge and experience. I would argue that both are necessary to improve as as software engineer.
I think this might be too large a question (tall an order?) for someone who's inexperienced to be able to answer. It's something difficult to know, because if you're a fledgling programmer than you're more than likely to be inexperienced. Experience also tends to warp your understanding of the process. So in turn, people who are experienced will tend to underestimate the steps they've taken compared to the knowledge they're holding.
Human resources give preference and priority to the experience than the knowledge.
Hahaha, I know this is inappropriate but I feel like people lean so heavily into the concept of a workplace being a second "family" that they use it as their main source of socialization. In turn are more prone to hire people they could see f**king (being attracted to) or hanging with (having fun with). I am not sure if it's intentional or not. But it has been my impression thus far. (I mean you could say this is sort of the norm everywhere.)
Pathetically the beauty and the look good sell. A creepy guy can be rejected in spite of you attitude, professional career and experience.
I mean I'd say 10/10 the "creepy guy" would be picked over the "creepy gal." But I hear you there. I will say there's a level of career experience that someone can hit where they plausibly can be on cruise control. Or could even just want basic boundaries between themselves and their employers. And a lot of corporations dislike these sort of things, and find it a lot easier to burn through a lot of young stock of inexperienced (cheaper) developers who will work for far less than they deserve like mad dogs on contract. They do it to international developers as well.
But also I mean the more congenial you are as a whole, the less waves they assume you'll make. Hence you're a better hire than someone with "needs" or "attitude." Hahahaha! Aww man, life is such a butt in that respect. Because every damn human deserves a crack at something, and a space to do it in.