Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks
Points and comments are a snapshot, not live.
Senior engineers judge junior hires by learning ability, not task count.
Kent Beck advises junior engineers that their primary value is future potential, not current task completion. Seniors categorize juniors as A (high-growth), B (solid), or C (likely to leave). To reach B, juniors must write working code, communicate, finish within a reasonable time, and avoid causing extra work for others. Reaching A requires learning from each task, such as finding simpler solutions, uncovering better designs, writing internal tools, or contributing outside one's team. A signals take longer than minimal task completion, so Beck advises investing saved time in work that benefits others.
What commenters are saying
Commenters split sharply on the article's premise. Many reject it, arguing companies hire juniors for junior-level tasks, not as long-term investments. Some managers confirm they hire for potential. Multiple comments call the article's framing toxic, with one principal engineer saying it reads as an 'egotistical toxic senior dev' and another criticizing its shame-based tone. Others note that 'A' signals like working extra hours often reflect management overloading staff rather than excellence. A few defend the core advice but caution that generic guidance may not match specific workplace evaluation criteria.