Most recently Clojure work. I’ve done a lot of Java of course, although I’ve been rejected from some of those jobs because I spent the last year doing Clojure full time instead of Java.
Heh, I actually interviewed with Reify during my last job search (where I ended up taking the job I was eventually laid off from). They weren't interested back then :/
They weren't interested as they might have had a better candidate. That is typically the reason. It is not about you not passing a metaphorical "bar" at least that is the case for senior positions.
I have been recruiting quite a lot and at the end of the cycle you go through making difficult choices. Often times you get 2 good candidates and only one spot. So you compare them and pick a better one. The dismissed candidate can be picked next year due to lack of better candidates.
Unless it has been clearly stated in the reply that you seemed to be below their expectation of a senior candidate. And even then... a lot can change over the year and if you feel like you are better you have every right to reapply. Most companies will inform you of reapply policy terms if your are outside of it.
Any company that rejects your 15 years of Java and other language experience because you spent the last year working in a Clojure shop is probably not a good company to work for. And not worthy of you. Think of it as your filter.
Specific language expertise rarely matters. I intentionally avoid discussing specific technologies used to achieve results/goals/services unless it's highly relevant (e.g. creating a RESTful web service etc.)
It's good to have your technologies listed, and be honest if your doing something out of your comfort zone... but there really isn't a technology out there that can't be picked up in 1-3 months.
+1 to this. Especially at the 16-years-experience level. Maybe earlier in someone's career where their primary focus is how to fit in and ship stuff without getting stuck all the time. But at ~staff level, your thinking and your contributions become a lot more language-agnostic (not entirely, but mostly)
I would not say that clojure/haskell/elixir can be picked up in 1-3 months in most environments. I do agree that you should highlight broader engineering experience and keep langs/techs as merely a proof of some competence in those.
If the job mentions the technology and most clojure/haskell/elixir dev jobs do then well unless they state "looking for experienced person willing to learn" in description I would not bother them. (at least with my complete lack of experience in tech). Similarly as I would not apply to "weird-tech-i-merely-heard consultant". Also think there should be consistency on the job titles/descriptions on the side of job posters.
My company (AppsFlyer) does a ton of Clojure work, and I think they'd love to talk (though most of our R&D is in Israel). Doesn't look like they have an open position in the US listed, but I'll send this message to some of our senior Clojure people and see whether they want to talk more with you.
wtf is happening in software? it seems tough to break in, and apparently it gets tough after ten years? so there's a ten year gap where the 'going is good'?
When I started my career 10y ago, even then it was understood that after getting in, you've got 10-15y to go before you start running out of desirability. Search "why aren't there any 20y+ devs", it's not a new phenomenon.
Something happens, idk what, after 10-15y. Either people made so much money that they retired, or they all become managers, or idk?
Personally I'm still doing fine but I can see the 15y horizon coming, and I'm glad I saved money like a madman. I've got options, hope you plan as such.
Almost no company does hard enough work, they don't need very experienced people - and they tend to charge more.
10 years of CRUD APIs is as productive as 20 or 30 years of CRUD APIs.
If anything, the older you get the higher the chance you won't know the latest BS kids are using these days.
I'm at 15 years, I keep specialising in different things (leadership, people management, mentoring, backend, frontend, infra, performance, crypto) but I'm just running out of things and the best paying companies (remote only) still want the same 3 skills.
My dad is doing pretty much what I'm doing with a 30 years advantage and getting jobs is harder and harder.
It does get boring, but my passive income from products is still not matching my ever growing daily rate. I guess at some point I'll stop being able to raise my daily rate, my passive income will catch up and I'll drop consulting entirely.
You use inexperienced and/or cheap programmers to build the foundation of your company. Then you bring in experienced folks to keep the barely-functional ball of mud shambling along for the next 10 years.
Startups really need senior people only to hit the ground running; only established companies with seniors can afford to hire juniors.
The thing is after a certain level of seniority, there is really not that much difference so you may just as well focus with someone with 10 years experience who charges a bit less, compared to a 15y dragon.
Yes, but it started roughly 10 years ago. It wasn't hard to break in and being older didn't matter. Now we have a massive glut of CS/IT graduates and a maturing industry exiting the rapid growth phase. On top of that we have a market and economy being propped up by 2 trillion in reverse repos.
It's a pyramid, so it gets harder because there are fewer roles to pick from that feels worthwhile, and you also need to overcome a fear from employers that you're too experienced and will get bored and leave.
I'm at 27 years experience, and my problem is not finding positions that I could get (with some finessing about how I want to stay hands on and/or love their specific company), but finding places that have sufficiently senior roles at the kind of salaries I expect. Most smaller companies don't need someone as experienced as me and/or can't afford me, and I don't really want to work at a FAANG or similar (had one big corporate experience and don't particularly need another) unless something truly exceptional is on offer.
Here's a tip to those looking:
If you struggle, look for roles that look undervalued and/or are slightly below your level, and apply anyway. Be honest about what you expect as long as you're not overvaluing yourself relative to your experience. Recruiters are often fine with putting forward a few expensive candidates if they look good enough. Especially external recruiters whose pay is usually at least partially linked to the salary you're hired at, but also because a spread helps give hiring managers an idea of the tradeoffs they're facing.
Undervalued roles (roles advertised with too low salary for what they're looking for) tend to attract fewer applications, so you're both more likely to get a shot and negotiating salary up beyond the stated level is usually possible. Applying to roles slightly below your level makes it easier to get past the first level recruiter filter because they like to give a range and for lower level roles they're less likely to have applicants to push on the upper end.
Shift your target down until you get the interviews. Then work on getting offers. Then work on lifting the offers to the level you need.
It's usually far more important to get past the recruiter than it is to get a perfect match with the role because a lot of companies have a lot of flexibility in what they're actually looking for. Especially for more senior roles the hiring manager will also often have reasonable influence and ability to get the budget lifted for a candidate that stands out.
E.g. in my current job search, my currently most promising prospect is a role where I told the recruiter I would not consider offers lower than 20% above the high end of their advertised range because I thought the advertised range was too low for the years of experience they wanted. And they wanted someone with less experience than me. She put me forward anyway, and on the back of seeing my CV they came back and wanted to interview me for a more senior role that has not been advertised, and where I'm currently the only candidate. I may or may not end up there, but to me that's a pretty normal experience when approaching companies about roles which fit those criteria.
If you want recommendations on what to avoid, an 8 page resume that starts out by listing your high school summer job in the 1960's is the best anti-example I've seen.
I was taught to leave the month off your start and end dates of previous positions when applying for a job. Still don’t know if this is a good idea or not, but at the very least it opens up another dialog tree with potential employers. Seems to have worked fine for me, but who knows. The rationale was “it’s less information to parse”. Might be just a superstition.
Interviewers always ask for more specifics anyways, which is good because you can use that as an opportunity to jump into things you accomplished near the end of a job, or at the beginning of another.
For most software positions, I’d omit the dates for school, and just note the institution and the degree you obtained. Unless it’s your first job or you’re still working on your degree. You can use dates as filler, but after 1 or 2 positions, in my experience (as an interviewer and interviewee) it tends to be better to sacrifice such details so you can elaborate more on work experience and projects, whilst keeping the resumé a single page. Or put the year on the same line as the school and degree, if you care.
Only APAC companies have asked though, haven’t really bothered with European companies
If you have a CS degree it doesn’t matter what the gap is there to where your years of job experience begins, assuming degree is before experience starts
Most recently Clojure work. I’ve done a lot of Java of course, although I’ve been rejected from some of those jobs because I spent the last year doing Clojure full time instead of Java.