Mostly just demographics, Joel Spolsky has some nice numbers on how the demographics are such that the amount of software engineers has been doubling every five years since the sixties. Which, in my age group means I'm out numbered by 24 by younger people, most of which have been active for less than 8 years. Explains a lot about people reinventing wheels.
That and a lot of Academic computer scientists never really figured out that there is more to building software than mathematics.
Another point somebody made recently that stuck with me is that in lots of professions it is common for managers to be practitioners themselves but somehow that is less true in software teams. Kind of odd if you think about it that key decisions in big companies that specialize in making software might be taken by somebody with essentially no direct experience building software; no clue about what is reasonable in terms of quality, technical realization, etc.
A pattern I see a lot in our industry is people with an MBA or some other non technical degree getting the product owner role, which in most companies means they call the shots on a lot of details related to when and what to ship. MBAs don't run armies, don't direct/produce movies, they don't get to head a team of chefs in any decent restaurant. Etc. So, what is so different about making software that it requires oversight by non technical people?
I'm a small business programmer. I love solving tough problems with Python and PHP. If you like what you're seeing, you should probably follow me here on dev.to and then checkout my blog.
Good points. Robert Martin has said similar things about the relationship between the growth in the number of programmers and what that means for our demographics.
I've only ever worked in small companies so I can't speak to the truth of how they tend to staff the product owner role. But what you're saying makes intuitive sense to me. Stereotypical programmer thinking is not well aligned with stereotypical business thinking. Putting an MBA in to middle might help the business types sleep well at night knowing someone like them is in charge.
The thing that might be different is that not a lot of programmers want to be business types because the money is so good in programming and many/most programmers love to code. I've read that is not uncommon for the senior devs to make more money than their bosses. So, in other industries, moving to management is a way to advance your career and make more money. But in programming it means learning about business, getting involved in politics, and watching your extremely valuable programming skills deteriorate, while you supervise people doing the work you actually love. And potentially making less money.
Regarding senior devs, I know a few (myself included) that are more or less self propelled. I tend to think of managers more like customers than leadership these days.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Mostly just demographics, Joel Spolsky has some nice numbers on how the demographics are such that the amount of software engineers has been doubling every five years since the sixties. Which, in my age group means I'm out numbered by 24 by younger people, most of which have been active for less than 8 years. Explains a lot about people reinventing wheels.
That and a lot of Academic computer scientists never really figured out that there is more to building software than mathematics.
Another point somebody made recently that stuck with me is that in lots of professions it is common for managers to be practitioners themselves but somehow that is less true in software teams. Kind of odd if you think about it that key decisions in big companies that specialize in making software might be taken by somebody with essentially no direct experience building software; no clue about what is reasonable in terms of quality, technical realization, etc.
A pattern I see a lot in our industry is people with an MBA or some other non technical degree getting the product owner role, which in most companies means they call the shots on a lot of details related to when and what to ship. MBAs don't run armies, don't direct/produce movies, they don't get to head a team of chefs in any decent restaurant. Etc. So, what is so different about making software that it requires oversight by non technical people?
Good points. Robert Martin has said similar things about the relationship between the growth in the number of programmers and what that means for our demographics.
I've only ever worked in small companies so I can't speak to the truth of how they tend to staff the product owner role. But what you're saying makes intuitive sense to me. Stereotypical programmer thinking is not well aligned with stereotypical business thinking. Putting an MBA in to middle might help the business types sleep well at night knowing someone like them is in charge.
The thing that might be different is that not a lot of programmers want to be business types because the money is so good in programming and many/most programmers love to code. I've read that is not uncommon for the senior devs to make more money than their bosses. So, in other industries, moving to management is a way to advance your career and make more money. But in programming it means learning about business, getting involved in politics, and watching your extremely valuable programming skills deteriorate, while you supervise people doing the work you actually love. And potentially making less money.
It was indeed uncle Bob that wrote about this blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2014.... Must have confused the two. Anyway, fun statistics.
Regarding senior devs, I know a few (myself included) that are more or less self propelled. I tend to think of managers more like customers than leadership these days.