Comment by peterhi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterhi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Not wanting to be brutal but if you have 2 years experience of anything then you are no longer a junior. Maybe not actually a senior but certainly not a junior. Junior is like saying trainee. Stop thinking that you are junior.

You seem to play down your accomplishments "Just converted some existing HTML(static) sites to dynamic(developed a simple & crude cms like interface to edit the content on the website). I also made some simple web services"

Lets rewrite that for you:

1) Rebuilt existing site into a modern Web2.0 dynamic website complete with it's own CMS to make the sites easier to maintain for the users. 2) Developed webservices to allow the content of XXX easily accessible by other services.

If your CV is like this post then it needs a makeover.

You are not a junior anything, you are an experienced ASP.net C# developer!

Building on your ASP.net and C# skills will provide greater benefit in the short term than becoming a noob in a whole bunch of other technologies.

This bullshit spin won't withstand even the most basic technical interview. It will also ensure that he'd come across as a pompous noob who's out of touch with reality.

I've been programming for money close to 25 years and I can assure you that the "junior" period covers at least 5 years. Yes, 3 years in you would think that you know a lot, have a boatload of experience and just a wee bit under "senior", but then at a 10 year mark you realize how obnxoisously cocky that self-assesment was. You just didn't know what you didn't know, but it didn't prevent you from feeling super-smart.

So, yeah, the OP is most definitely junior. That part is not a problem and it's actually really good that he doesn't think more of himself than he really is. His problem is a lack of experience and the only solution to this is just to sit your ass down, read what others have written and write your own code. Iterate.

It isn't bullshit for a mid level generalist to remove the "junior" just because the web frameworks play musical chairs every few years.

Titles are stupid. If I were feeling more cynical, I'd argue that the problem is the Windows programming ecosystem doesn't have much of a middle.

The problem with his description of his achievements is that he is probably underplaying them. Obviously without knowing what he has actually produced (seen the site, reviewed the code etc) I was hoping to make him see what he has done in a better light. "Spent two years converting a static website to something more modern" sounds really lame and could indicate a lack of confidence in what he is capable of or perhaps he is failing to recognise what he has actually done.

His CV needs to get him an interview and I think he is selling himself short.

Personally 'junior' means 'trainee'. Anyone who after five years is still a trainee would have their CV thrown straight into the bin. But I have always worked in environments with very flat hierarchies. Juniors need supervision and mentoring, I expect anyone who been employed for more than a year to be capable of unsupervised work.

Disclaimer: I am the IT manager, I review all the CVs, I get to say who gets employed. I've yet to regret any hiring decision so I am reasonably confident in the methods I employ.

I've employed people with much less experience than the poster and they were up to speed in no time. In 5 years you could get a degree in almost any subject and complete a masters on top of it - at least in the UK.

I would expect competence in a programming language in weeks or months, not years. Note I require competence not expertise.

>> I can assure you that the "junior" period covers at least 5 years.

You can't assure that. There are super sharp people out there with less than 3 years of experience that know a whole lot and there are devs with 10+ years experience who can't determine when a for-loop should be used.

The problem is that term 'programmer' means very different things depending on the industry and company you're in.

> The problem is that term 'programmer' means very different things depending on the industry and company you're in.

That's because 'programmer' as a word is a lot like 'painter', which means "applies pigment to surface" and does not differentiate between "painter of portraits" and "painter of my kitchen".

Programming is a literate and verbal exercise: We should have better words for this.

Knowledge is not the only thing that defines a junior. It is also the actual experience, with the actual real world problems. Super sharp people with 3 years in the industry simple don't clock enough time to step on all the rakes. They are still prone to making rookie mistakes simply because they haven't made them yet.

Yes, so "junior" covers up to 5 years, and it also extends to "same 5 years, N times over again". I.e. it has a base case of a number of years, over which it potentially recurses/iterates. :)

Mostly agreed. I think the term 'junior' can be applied to people with 0-5 years, but the number is somewhat arbitrary, and depends a lot on what was done during that time. If the person had escalating responsibilities while being mentored appropriately, they'd definitely be out of 'junior' status quickly.

I've met people with far more than 5 years experience who really are still 'junior' when it comes to the ability to program. They might rock at PHP or Rails or Wordpress or whatnot, but mostly are reusing existing libs without understanding how it actually works, and couldn't replicate anything on their own.

The balance the OP needs to find is being able to promote their accomplishments and skills without the usual inflated cockiness that seems to come across in many resumes. What's even weirder is many people I meet aren't like that in real life, but reading their resumes, it reads as if they are. I keep thinking "there's gotta be a better way" then think "I guess there is - word of mouth networking".

I have 2 years of experience, and I started holding the formal title of senior software engineer before hitting that mark - I have also passed on lead engineer roles at multiple well known companies already.

This is not an undeserved title either - I have been praised for strength and volume of contributions, improving code and processes. I am about to be promoted as well. Granted, I am probably a rarity, but it is possible to be quite accomplished in that time span.

Don't take this advice. Don't pretend you have skills that you don't. Also, this guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about because "Web 2.0" implies social features. The biggest red flag I ever see on a resume is someone incorrectly using Web 2.0 (and anyone who actually knows what it means won't use it).

The description was also vague and contained multiple grammatical errors. Yikes.

Web 2.0 did not originally imply social features. You may understand that now, but Web 2.0 originally meant the use of browser-side programming to create a more "desktop like" experience, together with CSS for snazzy layouts, whereas Web 1.0 is more plain HTML, with flow based on form filling and submission.

For example, if we compare two webmail applications -- Squirrelmail and RoundCube -- we might identify Squirrelmail as "Web 1.0" and RoundCube as "Web 2.0".

If the job meant taking static HTML to Web 2.0, that is clear: the pages were transformed or replaced with a fairly "rich" UI, skipping the stage where you have drop-down lists, checkboxes and submit buttons in a blocky layout.

(What is social features, anyway? "Log in with your Facebook account" or "comments powered by Disqus"? This fluff is simply not applicable in many kinds of professinoal websites! Do you want to see twitter comments underneath when accessing some medical record? "Share your medical history via Google+! Yes/Learn More/Not now" ...)

I apologize to passers-by for how pedantic this is about to get...

First, I don't care how it was coined. I care how I use it now. No modern speaker of language uses all words as they were first used. We use them as they're understood.

Second, while Web 2.0 was coined in obscurity to mean what you describe, it rose to popularity with the understanding of social features[1].

"Social features" simply mean that users can connect to one another and/or generate the value of the site. YouTube is an example of Web 2.0 because it wasn't a publishing platform for established companies as much as a video-sharing platform, where user-generated content was first-class content.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#Web_2.0

Note that this sense of Web 2.0 does not replace the original meaning; it's a different nuance. The word "Web" in that nuance refers to "The World Wide Web" as such, and the "2.0" is just a common trope referring to a new improved something. Meet the new me. Me 2.0, if you will.

"Web 2.0", where "web" refers to "web technology", has not disappeared. Though it's something that the average user might not care about, it's not outdated in the same way in which, say, "sensibility" meaning "sensitivity" is outdated. The people who originally used "web 2.0" are still alive and still use it, for one thing.

Do you also think that this site is using "hacker" incorrectly, because the popular new meaning is "electronic criminal", and has been since at least 1980?

I wasn't suggesting that Web 2.0 has replaced the original meaning of Web. I said that Web 2.0 (meaning a website with user-generated content) has replaced the original, obscure meaning of Web 2.0 (meaning a website with dynamic content).

Your argument that I must disagree with "hacker=geek" because I disagree with "Web 2.0=dynamic" is based on a false premise. I don't care how non-technical journalists use either word. I care how my community (tech professionals) use those words: hacker=geek and Web2.0=social.

Web 2.0 (technology) doesn't mean "dynamic content". In 1994 there was dynamic content with server-side script execution, which solidified into CGI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gateway_Interface :

"Common Gateway Interface (CGI) is a standard method used to generate dynamic content on Web pages and Web applications. " (emphasis mine)

"History ... In 1993, The NCSA team wrote the specification for calling command line executables on the www-talk mailing list."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com