Post #2502891

2026-05-13 17:49 UTC

This is the only sane answer here, and it makes sense because of the sentiment on Lemmy. There is one constant rule about software engineering. You must be adaptable. The career is ever changing, you need to be okay with that. I think a lot of people right now are finding out that if they dig in their heels they think they’re making a point, but the company doesn’t care, there’s the door. AI is just another change in the career. Adapt, or be left behind. The job isn’t the same as it was 5 years ago, which also was different than it was 10 years before that, and then 10 years before that. I’ll say this is a large change, but that’s the job. I think the biggest thing is there’s no room for “I’m a react engineer” anymore. Everyone needs to be everything, and it means learn as much as you can as fast as you can. You must be a “T-shaped” engineer. Wide breadth, with specific deep knowledge that makes you stand out. You can be an expert at react, but should also know how to code in the backend, and how to deploy, how to work with APIs, some basic cloud architecture. If you’re not learning, you’re falling behind.

Replies (2)

@BassTurd@lemmy.world 2026-05-13 23:39

It’s what makes being a developer a double edged sword. I’m always learning new skills, architectures, languages, and technologies all of the time, which is great. Management wanting me to know it last year to complete today’s new work yesterday is not so great. You have to stay on your toes and learn (and understand) new tech or someone else will.

Open ##2505534
@HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 2026-05-14 00:47

1940: “These mechanical monstrosities lack the intuitive check of a human mind. A mathematician can spot a stray digit through reason; a machine will blindly process an error to its conclusion. We are trading the elegance of thought for a noisy, fallible crate of glass and wire.” 1950: “Direct control is the only honest way to command a machine. If you cannot visualize the specific vacuum tube you are firing, you aren’t truly programming. To delegate this to any intermediary is to invite a loss of precision that the hardware simply cannot afford.” 1955: “These ‘mnemonics’ are a crutch for the lazy. By using words instead of addresses, the programmer loses the vital ‘feel’ for memory layout. We are seeing a five-fold decrease in efficiency; no automated assembler can ever match the tight, hand-calculated loops of a master of bits.” 1965: “Compilers are the death of performance. These languages allow ‘programmers’ who don’t even understand the CPU architecture to bloat memory with generic subroutines. Software is becoming a black box—impenetrable, unoptimized, and dangerously detached from the reality of the silicon.”

Open ##2506086