mcraenich

What can be done with software is pretty immense now, but I think we tend to underestimate how much code being written in the industry is aimed at the maintenance of applications with only mild to moderate complexity.

If you're a decent generalist, maintenance of pretty much anything isn't that hard unless you're jumping into something low level like C++.

Architecture / building major applications from the ground up is harder, but this isn't that common of a task, and if you're building something mission critical and important, odds are you have a team. Or at least you should.

This is a good answer although I think someone with this ability is approaching the level of lead. It's an ideal senior, but many seniors don't demonstrate all of these qualities.

At a bare minimum I think you're looking at someone who has a solid understanding of the code base and business they're working in.

All good answers, but I'll also add in 'failing upward'. Some people get promoted because of social dynamics, not skill level.

A 'well-defined career development framework' is a nice to have for most companies, but ultimately beholden to the lived reality of the business. Does the tech being used offer this possibility? Does anyone with clout in the company have the incentive to make it happen?

Most businesses are a collection of people filling roles, doing exactly what they're supposed to do to keep their job. That doesn't often lend itself to nice to haves like career development frameworks.

If the business has a major incentive to provide it, it'll likely come into existence.

I took a class on it around 2013 in college, mainly out of interest, not because I wanted to use it. It was that experience that convinced me I'd never actually want to work with it for money.

It was an interesting experience, but absolutely nothing about it was enjoyable, the language, the tooling, the support. All of it.

I'd add to 97 things every programmer should know, there is also a '97 things every architect should know', which is just as good.

In my career books have paled in comparison to real world experience, and finding myself far outside of my comfort zone. The two major advances I've gained in skill were a) completing a college diploma b) being thrown into the deep-end at a fortune 500. You can read all the books in the world, but challenging work experience will have far more impact.

The 'mental model and scientific process' has less to do with code alone, and more to do with the holistic act of working for a business. Development is just a part of it. Books will teach you best practices (and you should know best practices), but they won't teach you how to be an effective team-member, or cog in the business.

I have a similar problem with a different background. Great pension and salary with a stress-free job that I leave at home.

It's also a problem with the modern world. We lack community, we lack physical, important work, and we spend our lives doing only one thing (programming). No matter what part of the industry you're in, this is going to get boring after a while.

My take is that there's no way around it - if you want excitement you're likely going to experience more stress. If you want stability, security, and a stress-free lifestyle you're going to be in a malaise with a bit of unease. There's no real silver bullet here beyond defining what you value, what your long-term goals are, and enjoying the ride toward those goals.

For me I think it was more about making the process of learning explicit, and the corollary that there is no such thing as 'complete knowledge'.

Where I think for a lot of people they learn about a thing, or a group of things, until they come to accept something as absolutely and definitely true - "what I know IS reality". Then the learning process just kind of stops there because they think they know, when really they just know slightly more.

I see it all the time, people with the illusion of knowledge when there is a ton more to the story.