Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Portion of Developers Are Bad At What They Do?
ramoneThePoolGuy writes: We are looking to fill a senior developer/architect position in our firm. I am disappointed with the applicants thus far, and quite frankly it has me worried about the quality of developers/engineers available to us. For instance, today I asked an engineer with 20+ years of experience to describe to me the basic process of public/private key encryption. This engineer had no clue. I asked another applicant a similar question: "Suppose you wanted to send me a file with very sensitive information, how would you encrypt it in such a way that I would decrypt it?" The person started off by asking me if it was an excel file, a PDF, etc. In general, I'm finding that an overwhelming number of developers I've interviewed have poor understanding of key concepts, especially when it comes to securing data. Are other firms experiencing this same dilemma in finding qualified applicants? (Quite frankly it scares me that some of these developers are building sites that need to be secure)"
So, should any developer know this? That is debatable. I've had very competent developers who had next to no clue about how DNS works. They could do their job just fine with that. Me? Personally, I'm not up to snuff with the finer points of SQL queries and all the joins that exists and when it makes sense to create an index, etc. Could I find out? Most likely, but I haven't had the need to recently.
The problem is, that you are mapping your knowlegde to "what people must know". I used to do that too, and I probably still do often enough. The DNS example above didn't come from nowhere: I had the case, and I was really thinking "how could such a competent person not know this", but then this person could probably enlighten me about dozens of things I don't know well enough.
It all comes down to what you define as "general knowgledge" for a developer should be and that is highly subjective.
TL;DR Hiring people is hard. Especially, technical people.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
You don't need to hire experts right off the bat. What you want to hire is someone who recognizes that they don't know the answer, and tells you that, and then immediately says they'd go research it to find out. "Can I Google that?" is a perfectly valid answer sometimes. If you hire a person who knows how to learn whatever it is you need them to become an expert in, you'll have a new employee who is not only going to be a valuable asset for where you're hiring them, but also has the flexibility to expand to other areas when necessary.
TL;DR: Stop looking for purple unicorns, and start looking for fast learners.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
"Suppose you wanted to send me a file with very sensitive information, how would you encrypt it in such a way that I would decrypt it?"
I'd use a cross-cut shredder, then send it to you in a paper bag along with some Scotch tape. (You didn't specify how easy it needs to be to decrypt, especially if I include some random shredded pages in the mix.)
Works for most types of files: Excel, PDF, etc...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
And about half are above average.
This is a problem I see in the entire STEM field. You work on technology X for a while, you learn it inside and out, and you expect everyone else who is "qualified" knows what you know. You want to hire someone with no ramp, who is going to drop in on day 1 and start doing great stuff, just as soon as he sets a password to his laptop.
In practice the fields are so huge, that it's fairly unlikely anyone has the domain knowledge you've acquired in your niche, unless you hire direct from a competitor (in which case you better pay well, or be offering something huge). A more reasonable approach is to weed people out based on their general skillset (i.e. what they should have learned in school), based on resume lies, and general attitude and disposition: excessive use of the passive voice, reluctance to commit to anything, points in their discussion where they failed to pursue issues to the next level, excessive number of employers, etc. Then expect it's 6 months before they start producing something that doesn't require you to hit them for. If you're afraid they will leave in 6 months, you're not paying enough or else you hired an incompetent and he's doing you a favor.
You learn it on your own time at your own expense. Duh. You aren't one of those "freeloaders" that expect their employer to invest any of their time or money in the growth and career development of their employees do you?
I keep hearing how hard it is to find good people but then the recruiters tell me that the potential employer can't meet my price point and that is the end of the discussion.
Coding Blog
Looks like all the comments are trending this way, and I agree. The interviewer seems to be looking to "defeat" his interviewees, which is a classic engineer social mistake. This guy likely shouldn't be a hiring manager.
I'm a web developer and I also haven an interest in understand public-private key crypto, PGP, steganography, physical security etc. The thing is, You don't need *any* of that to build good, secure websites. You should be asking about things from the OWASP Top 10 List if you want to gauge their ability to write secure code.
https://www.owasp.org/index.ph...
Otherwise you're judging them for not having the same "other" unrelated-to-your-job security interests as you.
They should understand that they aren't trained enough to build their own authentication encryption systems correctly. They should use generally accepted procedures like BCrypting passwords with a unique per-user SALT that also uses a site-specific key. And that other sensitive fields should be blocked from being recorded in logs, data should be encrypted at rest, etc. But if they have poor OWASP skills, the sensitive data is still readable because it is accessed through the application which is decrypting it for an attacker.
You're asking the wrong things and judging on unrelated skills.
Almost everybody is extremely bad at their jobs. Especially in IT, but in general too. I would say a solid 85% of people working in IT today should not be in the field.
I work in Security and so my job is basically to know, at a high level, how other people should do their jobs. Of course there are compromises that have to be made for functionality and cost, but in reality most IT systems are developed and architected in a way that no one should architect anything for any reason. The amount of money that's wasted because of poor infrastructure is astonishing. Companies could have an architecture that's twice as secure and probably half the cost to maintain if they were willing to make a one time investment in doing it properly.
Developers are a weird animal too. I know I'm playing with fire saying this on Slashdot. :) In my experience developers have a deep understanding of how systems work and are designed (obviously), but their understanding is *extremely* narrow. This is by no means true of all developers, but it's true of a lot. They can write brilliant code, but they can't tell you how to go about FTP-ing a file, how to encrypt an email, or how a domain works. It's a specialized skill set.
At a previous company I had to call support because my computer didn't grok with the domain and wasn't getting group policy. The tech, with her domain admin access, comes over and is obviously floundering trying to fix the problem. I suggest running a DOS command I know...she googles it and pulls it up...she gets to the command prompt and starts typing, "command\optionfoobar-x7", etc. How can you possibly be in that field and not know the *most basic structure* of a DOS command? I don't care if you know the command and options, everyone googles that crap, but you don't know how to type it in properly? A backslash and no spaces? Really? Even when you're looking at a webpage which has it verbatim?
Its no wonder things are in the state they're in.
I would like it flip it around and ask you why do you think your companies are actually worth working for? Are you going to employ us when we are 40, 50, 60+? Are you going to ask me a bunch of stupid questions even though I have 20 years of work in my portfolio? I just don't understand why its so acceptable for employers to be so arrogant in the IT world compared to other professions.
If companies really wanted good people they would:
I have found that software development might be a decent job, but a horrible career. I'm going to go raise goats and make cheese (sorry ranting)
I laugh at inappropriate times.