Where do all the hardcore engineering jobs live? I've been bothered by the fact that most advanced engineering roles like "staff" actually mean "manager who does system design as well"

Where are the docker/redis/next.js/linux kernel/qt/roller-coaster tycoon creators? Where are the people creating amazing software and do they get a special "advanced developer" title?

I guess, I'm curious if there are actual roles in companies for people who love their craft and create software others can't. Most companies seem to be consumers instead of creators and only offer Jr.-to-Sr. level roles around making a CRUD API micro-service collection.

Where are the docker/redis/next.js/linux kernel/qt/roller-coaster tycoon creators?

Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps. When you see something that makes you go "WOW! I could never do that!" you're seeing the final result of a long journey, and you probably could have taken each small step with a bit of effort.

There's no need for a special title for people who make amazing things. They're not that different to the rest of us. The main thing they have going for them is an environment that lets them shine - time to research and explore, less pressure to do things that aren't moving them towards the end result we see, and fewer externalities that make them lose focus.

I'm not suggesting just anyone could make Linux or Roller Coaster Tycoon, but I am definitely of the opinion that given then right circumstances most people could produce something that other people believe is at that sort of level of complexity.

May we all find those jobs one day.

> Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps.

I think you are right. Really impressive work is generally the result of a longer journey than you realize. The time and effort put into it is probably underestimated. But my mind immediately tries to think of exceptions (which totally prove the rule). I'm curious if others would agree with this one: Sometimes there are just really great ideas.

Minecraft comes to mind. And I don't mean today's Minecraft. I mean the alpha and beta versions which were wildly popular and essentially just an engine and sandbox world with a tiny fraction of the features today's game has. People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code, which is why I attribute this more to "great idea" than long iterative process that most people cant replicate. And a totally anecdotally and subjective reason (although I've heard others express it too). I found the game immediately nostalgic. It was new but it felt old - like it had existed in some form before but had just now taken shape. That to me seems like a great idea.

Ironically, I find myself questioning if I underestimated how long Notch took to create it. A cursory search says a week for the initial version, but this timeline shows more like 1 to 1.5 years from nothing to alpha: https://minecraft-timeline.github.io/ Even still, the fact that the core game can be recreated without too much effort does suggest that that it was more about being a good idea than being difficult to implement. I don't look at Minecraft and think "wow I could never do this." Instead I look at it and think, "Wow. That was a really great idea."

Although I suppose you could says that great ideas are an iterative process too. But at that point you have to decouple "really impressive stuff" from "I could never do this".

> People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code

Yes, because they have something to reference. It was like Notch took a level editor and made it into the game itself. That isn't an easy thing to figure out and takes time.

> Sometimes there are just really great ideas.

Ideas are easy and usually it's really stupid ideas that turn out to be great ideas. Who would think that an FPS level editor would be a good idea? Or a text box that anyone can edit on a profile page would be popular (facebook)?

There are not great ideas, just ideas that are executed well.

>> People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code

> Yes, because they have something to reference.

But you couldn't reimplement podman in a few hundred lines of code.

> Ideas are easy

Not all ideas have the same quality. Should be self evident. Nevertheless you should be able to see that I understand ideas are cheap in some sense - that's what the comment about decoupling "this was an iterative process" from "I could never do this." You can transfer an idea effortlessly - it's more about implementing it. But if its it trival to implement clearly more of the brilliance was on the idea side of things.

You don't even need a few hundred: https://github.com/p8952/bocker

And then there's 'dokku' which IIRC, started as a bash version of Heroku.

> Not all ideas have the same quality.

They really do. I've heard all kinds of things in my career, but almost none I would want to dedicate a portion of my life building. Not because they are bad ideas or won't work, but because of the person with the idea or it just didn't interest me. Those people went on to be moderately successful (like hundreds of millions worth) but I'm glad I wasn't on that ride.