College can be one of the worst investments for an IT career ever.

I've been in university for the past 3 years and my views on higher education have radically changed from positive to mostly cynical.

This is an extremely polarizing topic, some say "your college is shite", "#notall", "you complain too much", and to all of you I am glad you are happy with your expensive toilet paper and feel like your dick just grew an inch longer, what I'll be talking about is my personal experience and you may make of it what you wish. I'm not addressing the best ivy-league Unis those are a whole other topic, I'll talk about average Unis for average Joes like me.

Higher education has been the golden ticket for countless generations, you know it, your parents believe in it and your grandparents lived it. But things are not like they used to be, higher education is a failing business model that will soon burst, it used to be simple, good grades + good college + nice title = happy life.

Sounds good? Well fuck you because the career paths that still work like that are limited, like less than 4.

The above is specially true in IT where shit moves so fast and furious if you get distracted for just a second you get Paul Walkered out of the Valley; companies don't want you to serve your best anymore, they want grunt work for the most part and grunts with inferiority complex to manage those grunts and ship the rest to India (or Mexico) at best startups hire the best problem solvers they can get because they need quality rather than quantity.

Does Uni prepare you for that? Well...no, the industry changes so much they can't even follow up on what it requires and ends up creating lousy study programs then tells you to invest $200k+ in "your future" for you to sweat your ass off on unproductive tasks to then get out and be struck by jobs that ask for knowledge you hadn't even heard off.

Remember those nights you wasted drawing ER diagrams while that other shmuck followed tutorials on react? Well he's your boss now, but don't worry you will wear your tired eyes, caffeine saturated breath and overweight with pride while holding your empty title, don't get me wrong I've indulged in some rough play too but I have noticed that 3 months giving a project my heart and soul teaches me more than 6 months of painstakingly pleasing professors with big egos.

And the soon to be graduates, my God...you have the ones that are there for the lulz, the nerds that beat their ass off to sustain a scholarship they'll have to pay back with interests and the ones that just hope for the best. The last two of the list are the ones I really feel bad for, the nerds will beat themselves over and over to comply with teacher demands not noticing they are about to graduate still versioning on .zip and drive, the latter feel something's wrong but they have no chances if there isn't a teacher to mentor them.

And what pisses me off even more is the typical answers to these issues "you NEED the title" and "you need to be self taught". First of all bitch how many times have we heard, seen and experienced the rejection for being overqualified? The market is saturated with titles, so much so they have become meaningless, IT companies now hire on an experience, economical and likeability basis. Worse, you tell me I need to be self taught, fucker I've been self taught for years why would I travel 10km a day for you to give me 0 new insights, slacking in my face or do what my dog does when I program (stare at me) and that's just on the days you decide to attend!

But not everything is bad, college does give you three things: networking, some good teachers and expensive dead tree remnants, is it worth the price tag, not really, not if you don't need it.

My broken family is not one of resources and even tho I had an 80% scholarship at the second best uni of my country I decided I didn't need the 10+ year debt for not sleeping 4 years, I decided to go to the 3rd in the list which is state funded; as for that decision it worked out as I'm paying most of everything now and through my BS I've noticed all of the above, I've visited 4 universities in my country and 4 abroad and even tho they have better everything abroad it still doesn't justify some of the prices.

If you don't feel like I do and you are happy, I'm happy for you. My rant is about my personal experience which is kind of in the context of IT higher education in the last ~8 years.

Just letting some steam off and not regretting most of my decisions.

I know I'm getting old from small signs like:
- I like mentoring newcomers even fresh graduates, explaining them everything they have to know, answering all of their questions if I can (I had some really bad mentors before as newcomer)
- These newcomers always learns faster than I expect and shortly they works faster than us
- On the other hand senior members asks my opinion about some decisions or technical issues even if I barely know more about that topic. (Did I look experienced somewhat?)
- I hardly take overhours and I discourage fresh graduates to do. (I did enough overnights already in my life)

So I figure since I straight up don't care about the Ada community anymore, and my programming focus is languages and language tooling, I'd rant a bit about some stupid things the language did. Necessary disclaimer though, I still really like the language, I just take issue with defense of things that are straight up bad. Just admit at the time it was good, but in hindsight it wasn't. That's okay.

For the many of you unfamiliar, Ada is a high security / mission critical focused language designed in the 80's. So you'd expect it to be pretty damn resilient.

Inheritance is implemented through "tagged records" rather than contained in classes, but dispatching basically works as you'd expect. Only problem is, there's no sealing of these types. So you, always, have to design everything with the assumption that someone can inherit from your type and manipulate it. There's also limited accessibility modifiers and it's not granular, so if you inherit from the type you have access to _everything_ as if they were all protected/friend.

Switch/case statements are only checked that all valid values are handled. Read that carefully. All _valid_ values are handled. You don't need a "default" (what Ada calls "when others" ). Unchecked conversions, view overlays, deserialization, and more can introduce invalid values. The default case is meant to handle this, but Ada just goes "nah you're good bro, you handled everything you said would be passed to me".

Like I alluded to earlier, there's limited accessibility modifiers. It uses sections, which is fine, but not my preference. But it also only has three options and it's bizarre. One is publicly in the specification, just like "public" normally. One is in the "private" part of the specification, but this is actually just "protected/friend". And one is in the implementation, which is the actual" private". Now Ada doesn't use classes, so the accessibility blocks are in the package (namespace). So guess what? Everything in your type has exactly the same visibility! Better hope people don't modify things you wanted to keep hidden.

That brings me to another bad decision. There is no "read-only" protection. Granted this is only a compiler check and can be bypassed, but it still helps prevent a lot of errors. There is const and it works well, better than in most languages I feel. But if you want a field within a record to not be changeable? Yeah too bad.

And if you think properties could fix this? Yeah no. Transparent functions that do validation on superficial fields? Nah.

The community loves to praise the language for being highly resilient and "for serious engineers", but oh my god. These are awful decisions.

Now again there's a lot of reasons why I still like the language, but holy shit does it scare me when I see things like an auto maker switching over to it.

The leading Ada compiler is literally the buggiest compiler I've ever used in my life. The leading Ada IDE is literally the buggiest IDE I've ever used in my life. And they are written in Ada.

Side note: good resilient systems are a byproduct of knowledge, diligence, and discipline, not the tool you used.

So i wasted last 24 hours trying to satisfy my ego over a shitty interview and revisiting my old job's codebase and realising that i still don't like that shit. just i am 25 and have no clue where am i heading at. i am just restless, my most of the decisions in 2023 have given very bad outcomes and i am just trying doing things to feel hopeful.

context for the interview story-----
my previous job was at a b2b marketing company whose sdk was used by various startups to send notifications to their users, track analytics etc. i understood most of it and don't find it to be any major engineering marvel, but that interviewer was very interested in asking me to design a system around it.

in my 1.2 years of job there, i found the codebase to be extremely and unnecessarily verbose ( java 7) with questionable fallbacks and resistance towards change from the managers. they were always like "we can't change it otherwise a lot of our client won't use our sdk". i still wrote a lot of testcases and tried to understand the working of major features.

BTW, before you guys go on a declare me an embarrassment of an engineer who doesn't know the product's code base, let me tell you that we are talking SDKs (plural) and a service based company here. their was just one SDK with interesting, heavy lifting stuff and 9 more SDKs which were mostly wrappers and less advanced libraries. i got tasks in all of them, and 70% of my time went into maintaining those and debugging client side bugs instead of exploring the "already-stable-dont-change" code base.

so based on my vague understanding and my even more vague memory from 1 year ago, i tried to explain an overall architecture to that interviewer guy. His face was screaming the word "pathetic" from his expressions, so i thought that today i will try to decode the codebase in 12-15 hours, publish a cool article and be proud of how much i know a so called martech system design. their codebase is open sourced, so it wasn't difficult to check it out once more.
but boy oh boy i got so bored. unnecessary clases , unnecessary callbacks static calls , oof. i tried to refactor a few classes, but even after removing 70% of codebase, i was still left with 100+ classes , most of them being 3000-4000 files long. and this is your plain old java library adding just 800kb to your project.

boring , boring stuff. i would probably need 2-3 more days to get an understanding of complete project, although by then i would be again questioning my life choices , that was this a good use of my 36 hours?

what IS a correct usage of my time? i am currently super dissatisfied with my job, so want to switch. i have been here for 6 months, so probably i wouldn't be going unless i get insane money or an irresistible company offer. For this i had devised a 2 part plan to either become good at modern hot buzz stuff in my domain( the one being currently popularized by dev influenzas) or become good at dsa/leetcode/cp. i suck bad at ds/algo stuff, nor am i much motivated. so went with that hot buzz stuff.

but then this interview expected me to be a mature dev with system design knowledge... agh fuck. its festive season going on and am unable to buy any cool shirts since i am so much limited with my money from my mediocre salary and loans. and mom wants to buy a home too... yeah kill me

Decided to refactor my code today. And boy was it a bad decision.

Online investment schemes have become increasingly popular, promising high returns with minimal effort. However, it is crucial to be aware of the significant risks associated with these schemes. Many online investment platforms, particularly those in the cryptocurrency space, operate with limited regulation and oversight, which makes them fertile ground for scams and fraudulent activities. Recent personal experiences have underscored these risks, highlighting the importance of vigilance and due diligence when engaging in online investments. My unfortunate journey began with a company called "CryptoTX," which presented itself as a legitimate crypt0currency trading platform. Initially, I was drawn in by the promise of lucrative returns and was reassured by my assigned account manager, Sarah Malone. She portrayed CryptoTX as a reputable firm with a track record of success. During our interactions, I mentioned my previous experience with another online trading platform, "Click’s Dealer." I had encountered significant issues with Click’s Dealer, and Sarah Malone assured me that it was a scam, further reinforcing my trust in CryptoTX. I started with an initial investment of $1,000, which, at first, seemed promising. I saw some trades yielding returns and even experienced what appeared to be substantial profits. Encouraged by these early successes, I decided to invest more, eventually committing a total of $180,000. However, this initial optimism soon turned into a nightmare. The tipping point came when I began to notice inconsistencies in the information provided by Sarah Malone. Each time I was contacted, I was urged to invest more money to cover "bad trades" or to capitalize on supposed new opportunities. Despite my growing concerns, I continued to follow their advice, largely due to the pressure exerted by the account manager and the desire to recover my previous losses. It became clear that CryptoTX promises were unfounded. My investments, which had initially shown some potential for profit, quickly dwindled. I found myself losing all of my hard-earned savings, amounting to a staggering $180,000. This sum represented my life savings, intended to secure my financial future and support me in retirement. The financial loss was devastating, not only due to the amount but also because of the emotional and psychological toll it took on me. In the aftermath of this experience, I realized that the terms and conditions I had agreed to likely included clauses that absolve CryptoTX of responsibility for investment losses. Many online investment schemes use such disclaimers to shield themselves from liability, arguing that investment inherently involves risk and that they cannot guarantee returns. This legal shield makes it challenging to hold them accountable, despite their misleading practices. Determined to recover my lost funds, I explored various avenues for redress. During my search, I discovered GRAYWARE TECH SERVICES, a consultancy and recovery firm that specializes in helping victims of online investment fraud. The firm had received positive reviews for its success in assisting individuals who had been defrauded by unregulated brokers. Deciding to give them a chance, I contacted GRAYWARE TECH SERVICES. Engaging with GRAYWARE TECH SERVICES turned out to be one of the best decisions I made. Their team provided expert guidance and support, working tirelessly to investigate my case and facilitate the recovery of my funds. Through their dedicated efforts, I was able to retrieve a significant portion of my losses, which was a tremendous relief. This experience has underscored the importance of exercising caution when dealing with online investment schemes. Many of these platforms operate with minimal regulation and oversight, making them ripe for exploitation. It is crucial to conduct thorough research before committing funds, be wary of platforms that promise guaranteed returns, and understand the terms and conditions associated with any investment. while the online investment landscape can offer lucrative opportunities, it is fraught with risks and potential pitfalls. Scammers and fraudulent schemes are prevalent, and it is essential to be proactive in protecting oneself from such threats. Educate yourself about common warning signs of fraud, seek professional advice if needed, and remain vigilant to safeguard your financial well-being.

GRAYWARE TECH SERVICES CONTACT INFO: What's App: +447421348767
Best Regards,
Ben Agnes.