> I've heard managers say crap like "but if we train them then they'll leave us when they finish the training and go somewhere else - we'll have paid for their training and get no benefit".
The clever response to that is: but what if we don't train them and they stay?
I'll say this: programming isn't a profession. If I was being particularly unkind, it's more like a collection of wild west gunslingers.
It probably won't be a profession either until we've settled the whole C++ vs Rust vs Lisp vs JavaScript vs $LANGUAGE_DU_JOUR debate, and stopped acting like egotists. "Rockstar programmer" is a problematical phrase. What it tells us is that programming is one big dick-measuring contest.
I trained as a UK chartered accountant, having graduated in mathematics. I had to go through a set of professional exams. I was under a training contract, started as a junior. I couldn't sign audit reports. That was for the partners. My work was reviewed, and as I moved up through the ranks, I reviewed others. When I was a senior, the juniors asked me for advice. When I finished my work, I spoke to a partner, he reviewed my work, and I reworked whatever was necessary.
There was also "calling and casting". After the accounts were typed up, a more junior clerk would have an old copy of the accounts with corrections, and the more senior clerk would have the revised copy. The junior clerk then read aloud what was on the accounts, and the senior checked it against his copy.
See that? Professional. I imagine lawyers, engineers and manifold other professions have similar appropriate procedures.
What do us programmers do? Release our shit onto the world and fix it later via patches. And issue licences that say we take no responsibility for the fitness of our programs.
That's why I call what we do gunslinging.
Maybe one day the queen will create an Institute of Chartered Programmers, but that day is not only far over the horizon, it's not even in the same solar system.