Titles matter

Well, the discussion isn't really about titles, as it is, about job descriptions.

Titles are important to HR departments, because they determine salary ranges from them (and sometimes, other perks).

Apple used to let their staff pick whatever title they wanted –Within limits, I'm sure (I saw some rather amusing business cards, in my time). I think they used a similar system to the government, internally (A numeric level system), to calculate salaries. Don't know if they still allow custom job titles (my money is on "no").

This is not a new type of argument. Whenever some force multiplier tech has arrived, there has been a struggle between the folks that are good at the new "multiplied" tech, and the ones that are really good at the older tech. Sort of a "John Henry" thing.

Companies usually pick the former. They get the same results, but faster/cheaper, and, when you are shipping, final results matter, and there are many factors in the "what matters" calculation.

So, if you can get a young PromptNinja, for a certain price, or a team of older CodeNinjas, how do you think the beancounters will go? Remember that buzzwords count, when you're shopping for funding and generating hype.

As an "older CodeNinja," I think it kinda sucks, but it's the reality of today's world. I have a lot of company, and our pool is getting bigger -fast.

I've been on the other side, as well. These days, I prefer hand-crafting my software, but I am quite aware that it isn't really valued, and that it would not be considered good ROI.

A verbose rewriting of an instance of "No True Scotsman".

If you use a legally described title, such as lawyer, MD, OD, electrician, or (in some US states and Canada) engineer, you either have the exact qualifications, or are committing fraud.

If you call yourself an unregulated title, such as web developer, rocket scientist, or landscaper, well, that's just like your opinion, man. And market forces will react; maybe by hiring you; maybe by spreading the word you don't deserve the title.

This is not a new phenomenon, although I can certainly imagine it's gotten worse since the advent of LLMs.

Is a person who can do a WordPress install and extensively customize the theme via WYSIWYG tools a web developer, for example?

I've used the title "web developer" before with hesitation because I'm not at all a front-end guy. I understand CSS conceptually and the markup well enough to usually hack together what I want, but producing a very specific look and feel from a set of design guidelines is a little bit of a stretch for me. Even though I can talk to you all day about server configuration, backend frameworks, DNS, caching, certificates, etc., I always feel like I need to clarify that unless your front end needs are fairly basic, I'm going to need some help. But is that really necessary? Maybe I'm being overly prescriptive.

I know web developers who just put together WordPress sites and that’s how it’s been for decades.

Words matter but you need a thousand of them. Someone could say they’re “into rock climbing” but that could mean they climb once a month or they’re obsessed and do it everyday. That’s why we go through interviews or have dates because everything has a certain hard-to-put-into-words nuance.

And that’s why I don’t really care how you use “web developer” as long as you get the general idea.

You're not defined by your output. A web developer doesn't just churn out code; a technical writer doesn't just write Markdown, and so on. Conflating deliverables with a craft is wrong.

Plus ça change! I started out in the "new media" industry in the late 90s and worked with a variety of "web designers" who didn't know how to code HTML or work with Web technologies at all, let alone upload anything. They had a good idea of the limitations but broadly "designed" things and handed them off to programmers to actually implement.

Lest anyone doesn't believe me, there was a BBC drama called Attachments which had a lot of London new media sceneish stuff going on in it and their team worked in a very similar way to real ones I was on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2rEFvlKA3g (NSFW as most post-watershed shows in 2000 were..)

My biggest concern here would be false confidence in LLM code. I don't want someone to vibe code an application that takes in my password or PII if they don't know how to properly audit that code. I'm sure we've all seen the posts online about how "software engineering is dead, look what I did with Claude Code by myself", but I guarantee the serial-solopenuer that's posting that has at least a few security flaws in their application that will do harm to their customers.

And a trained dev can let those through as well, but I really doubt the rate is anywhere close to the same.

I have coworkers that trust their LLM code _way_ too much. It does some great stuff, but I always have to do at least a little bit of cleanup or fixing. The amount of trash AI code I've had to review is kind of upsetting.

It’s not meant to be contrary to the article, but I still think it’s relevant here, and, for better or worse, also true: People don’t care about your effort or how hard you’ve worked. People care about the outcomes and the results.

Terminology is not intrinsically good. If you are working with others towards a shared goal, then agreeing on terminology and having precise language is objectively good for everyone (assuming no one is secretly trying to sabotage the project). If you don't share any goals, then there is not even a coherent sense in which it could matter.

Talking with strangers on the internet almost always falls into the second category.

Before continuing to read the remainder of the 20-30 minute opinion piece, I visited the "About Me" part of the website and found an ironic blurb:

> I'm currently a Frontend Engineer at [XYZ] (I made the new logo, so I guess I'm technically still a designer, too).

So now I question if what set the author off on bluesky was also said in jest, otherwise his belittling sentiment toward "designers" is similar to his (justified) displeasure for the belittling sentiment towards web devs.

Either way, it is a pretty apparent when someone is inflating themselves with a title they don't deserve. The author is pretty apparently good at what he does and a master in the field but man, folks need to let comments they see on social media go. Imagine being a P5 and a P-20 made a belittling comment. Just go about your day and let your accolades speak for themselves.

I see only 2 real arguments (actually only 1):

> If I call a plumber, and the guy who shows up doesn’t know anything except how to ask ChatGPT what to do, I will feel this person has misrepresented themselves.

This is essentially saying process matters (just as much or even more) than results. And I would say long term that is probably true, but in the short term it is often not the case. If I have a leak in my house I care not what the guy's title is. If they can fix it now, I'm happy. With a doctor I'd actually argue it is similar for emergency situations (which is why EMS are often not doctors), but in a long-term care situation it obviously becomes much more relevant. In essence, this just expresses a preference for that part of the market where interactions are less transactional and more about building lasting business relationships.

> I care because, frankly, those of us who do web development have worked damn hard to earn the proficiency we have, and we, like all other skilled laborers, deserve a measure of respect for our work.

Which is really no argument at all, because everybody deserves respect. Treating people differently because of titles is so backwards.