Deconstructing Developer Value: Are Bootcamps & Open Source Undermining Our Craft?

The tech profession often grapples with questions of its self-worth and future. A compelling argument suggests that developers may have inadvertently undermined their own craft through practices like promoting easy entry into the field and extensive open-source contributions. This perspective suggests these actions have led to a perceived flood of underqualified individuals, stagnant wages, and a devalued profession. However, a closer look reveals a more nuanced reality, with many challenging these assumptions and offering alternative explanations that point to natural evolution, market forces, and even the positive impacts of these very practices.

The Bootcamp Phenomenon: Demand, Not Glorification

A central point of contention revolves around the role of coding bootcamps. While some assert that developers "glorify" these programs, leading to a surplus of underqualified talent, many disagree. A common counter-argument is that bootcamps emerged primarily as a response to an "astronomical" demand for developers. Companies were desperate for talent, and these programs rose to fill a crucial market gap, rather than being an outcome of developers actively cheapening their profession.

Furthermore, the perception that "anyone can become a developer in weeks" is largely dismissed by experienced professionals. Most express disappointment with the outcomes of many bootcamps, and a significant portion view them critically, not with glorification. The analogy of a gold rush, where more people rush to sell shovels (bootcamps) than to dig for gold, aptly describes the market dynamic that created this scenario.

Open Source and Knowledge Sharing: A Double-Edged Sword?

Another significant theme explores open source and the culture of free knowledge sharing. The initial argument posits that developers uniquely work nights and weekends contributing free code, which is then taken for granted and even used to train AI models, thus devaluing their expertise.

However, this view is strongly challenged. Many argue that the free sharing of knowledge and open-source contributions have been foundational to the immense growth and demand within the tech market, ultimately benefiting engineers with higher salaries. The idea that developers are unique in giving away expertise for free is also refuted, with concrete examples like Law StackExchange and Quant StackExchange demonstrating similar knowledge-sharing platforms in other professional fields. The sheer scale and visibility of code on platforms like GitHub might just make this contribution seem more prominent in software.

The concern that open source fuels AI, potentially replacing junior developers, is acknowledged as a significant shift. However, some optimistically view AI as another technological evolution, similar to the internet or telephones, that will change the landscape rather than purely diminish the profession.

Wages, Value, and the Evolution of the Craft

The claim of "stagnant or declining wages" and a "disposable" profession also receives significant pushback. While acknowledging that the industry has experienced a "compensation bubble" in the past, many believe that wages haven't truly declined yet, with remaining positions still offering high pay, albeit with companies becoming more selective.

Instead of glorifying mediocrity, the profession has spent decades striving to increase skills, improve practices, and develop better tools. This natural progression, characterized by working at "higher and higher levels of abstraction" and building upon "the shoulders of giants," has made coding more accessible to a broader range of people. This increased accessibility is seen by some as a sign of success in making the craft more manageable, not necessarily cheaper.

An interesting perspective suggests that businesses accept rising wages partly because it frees them from paying for ongoing education, licensing, or career maintenance for their employees. This indicates a different economic dynamic than a simple race to the bottom for wages.

Conclusion

While the initial premise points to internal factors undermining the profession, the broader consensus suggests that many changes are either natural evolutions of the field (better tools, higher abstraction), driven by market forces (demand creating bootcamps), or have ultimately benefited the profession (open source enabling market growth). The challenge lies in adapting to these changes, particularly the rise of AI, rather than attributing them solely to a collective self-sabotage by developers. Evaluating a rapidly evolving field requires understanding how innovation and accessibility continuously reshape its core identity and value.