This was so worth saving and reading when I had the dedicated time (and attention) to take it in. As a non-tech professional, slowly trying that "one engineering concept a week" (maybe more), I have been frustrated to no end with the endless rabbit holes that pop up, but it has helped. I can have conversations with peers and be able to answer questions like, "Where is your code?" So worth that effort.
There's a saying: "There is nothing new under the sun in computing."
And we're seeing that play out today.
Forty years ago, when I earned my degree in Business and Information Systems, the industry pleaded for IT professionals who understood business fundamentals. Yet, throughout my career, those skills were largely ignored. Companies didn't want architects or business strategists; they wanted coders.
Now, with AI driving the democratization of coding, syntax has become a commodity.
We have come full circle.
It is a bitter irony to find myself on the scrapheap of redundancy, knowing that the very skills the industry overlooked for decades are the ones that are now most in demand.
Very well said. One of the reasons I was/am so successful in landing great clients and such is because I “think like a business” and have the technical acumen to support the engineering side of the equation too. Business owners and leaders see that and know its a rare trait, but also know that its a trait that can likely increase efficiency, lower costs and improve the overall culture and direction of a company. All that said, I agre with you completely.
Non-engineers shipping useful things is real. Scale, cost, backups, and governance are what pull engineering back in. The pendulum is the product, not a culture war.
Don! Wow, that was compressive. Didn't even finish reading, feel like I should just tell Claude to take some notes and save it as a .md file and I should move on.
The people that I know who are competent with software development and another discipline (doctor, dentist, real estate, etc) are the unicorns too. They tend to see the code in the matrix and execute at very high level.
Great article Donn. In my career I've found by far the most interesting software engineering roles to be the "more than pure builder" ones. What you describe is the way it always should have been right? The thing I ponder is whether as experienced software engineers transition to agentic builders, then eventually to retired agentic builders - will the ranks of new builders have the necessary technical chops / experience / spidey sense or drift towards Dunning-Kruger?
The pendulum metaphor explains the apparent contradiction AI collapses the cost of the first working version, then hands leverage back to whoever understands architecture, scaling, and unit economics, with each swing smaller as guardrails accumulate.
This was so worth saving and reading when I had the dedicated time (and attention) to take it in. As a non-tech professional, slowly trying that "one engineering concept a week" (maybe more), I have been frustrated to no end with the endless rabbit holes that pop up, but it has helped. I can have conversations with peers and be able to answer questions like, "Where is your code?" So worth that effort.
Appreciate this article, Donn!!
Thanks for reading Peter. I really appreciate it!
There's a saying: "There is nothing new under the sun in computing."
And we're seeing that play out today.
Forty years ago, when I earned my degree in Business and Information Systems, the industry pleaded for IT professionals who understood business fundamentals. Yet, throughout my career, those skills were largely ignored. Companies didn't want architects or business strategists; they wanted coders.
Now, with AI driving the democratization of coding, syntax has become a commodity.
We have come full circle.
It is a bitter irony to find myself on the scrapheap of redundancy, knowing that the very skills the industry overlooked for decades are the ones that are now most in demand.
Very well said. One of the reasons I was/am so successful in landing great clients and such is because I “think like a business” and have the technical acumen to support the engineering side of the equation too. Business owners and leaders see that and know its a rare trait, but also know that its a trait that can likely increase efficiency, lower costs and improve the overall culture and direction of a company. All that said, I agre with you completely.
Non-engineers shipping useful things is real. Scale, cost, backups, and governance are what pull engineering back in. The pendulum is the product, not a culture war.
Don! Wow, that was compressive. Didn't even finish reading, feel like I should just tell Claude to take some notes and save it as a .md file and I should move on.
Thanks for reading most of though, Sheldon lol. Have a good one.
Suggestion:
Treat computer science as a tool not a career
1. Honours degree Computer Science
2. Prerequisite courses in your main interest
3. Summer positions in your main interest
4. Honours, graduate degrees in your main interest
The people that I know who are competent with software development and another discipline (doctor, dentist, real estate, etc) are the unicorns too. They tend to see the code in the matrix and execute at very high level.
Great article Donn. In my career I've found by far the most interesting software engineering roles to be the "more than pure builder" ones. What you describe is the way it always should have been right? The thing I ponder is whether as experienced software engineers transition to agentic builders, then eventually to retired agentic builders - will the ranks of new builders have the necessary technical chops / experience / spidey sense or drift towards Dunning-Kruger?
The pendulum metaphor explains the apparent contradiction AI collapses the cost of the first working version, then hands leverage back to whoever understands architecture, scaling, and unit economics, with each swing smaller as guardrails accumulate.
Very impressive, Don. It reassures me of my plan ahead.