Clojurians Log v2

there's such an approach as language agnosticism I think it has something to do with this. I know many examples when people easily changed technologies and campaigns were ready to wait until the person adapts, the key is to know the basics.

While the list in my CV is long, too, it’s still tailored to the role and I’m sorting out / putting lower the categories and skills that are less relevant to the role. Also, depending on the role and person, the categories might be different. In the given example it's very development/technicality-focused, in my case of a more generalist skillset it's area-focused (ie one category could be Artificial Intelligence and then includes selected skills for that including concepts, frameworks, etc.). I'd say I'm not working with everything listed every day, but that's also not necessary. All of the listed skills were used in the recent past (maximum 2,5 years ago). I agree that in the given example it looks more like SEO keywords and less of a tailored approach. Then again, if the person is skilled at them and therefore ranked higher by certain viewers by including it, that's the expectation. It's a fine line between "not mentioning basics that bloat up space in the CV" and "including some skill that I might see as basic but that lots of others are actually lacking". Prime example is git which is such basic and then you see so many candidates failing at it. It always depends on the viewer.

In the other extreme, what I find hard to judge is when I'm seeing CVs with a tiny selection of skills (maybe around 5-10), which are either broad (hard to tell what are actually the core skills inside the broad terms) or very specific (hard to tell how much the candidate knows beyond those very specific terms, ie how big their horizon is). Negative bonus points when the candidate puts their skills on a personal assessment scale of 1-5 stars. Anyways, lots of recruiters like the design of fancy templates that have such ratings. Tough to blame the candidates then. It's also role-, company-, and market-dependent if you're successful as an applicant when you stick out in a different CV design approach - hopefully perceived as smart -, or if you need to go with the flow (whatever that means for that application) and then stick out in other ways in the application.

I guess It’s always question of perspective. Companies write like that You are proficient in *one or more programming languages* in the Java or .NET environment (C#, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Clojure), or Javascript (Javascript, Typescript). Why there list of languages? Will employee work with all this languages? Probably not, but it’s attract candidates.

Every job is unique. Every person is unique. So it’s always something to learn and adapt to new challenges. List are just keywors to get general idea of what problems person did solve or company is dealing with. I quess it’s hard to write every aspect of previos chalenges and say what you are capble to learn in “resume”, then it will a book.

That job post fragment is very strange to me tho' -- someone "qualifies" for that if they're a JS developer with Vue.js/Express experience or a Java/JS developer with Spring Boot/Angular experience but those are very different skillsets, and why ask about the other languages? You pretty much have to know JS to qualify regardless. My first question would be "What actually is your stack?" This pretty much sums up my point above about companies writing scattergun job specs without telling the application anything useful. Again, it's the "jack of all trades" issue (or the "cog in the machine" issue -- they just want warm bodies filling seats).

I initially said: > Resumes like that are terrible - they've put a list of every tech they've ever looked at - and job postings like that are also terrible. I've no idea why companies do that. As a hiring manager, when I get a resume like that, I just throw it away. It tells me nothing useful. TBH, any resume that claims "HTML5" and "CSS3" as languages is a red flag to me. If you're applying for a front end job, HTML/CSS/JS should be a given -- list the interesting skills you have. And maybe aside from Dart, I "know" all of those languages but I certainly wouldn't try to claim anyone should hire me for them. Maybe Java (but all my knowledge was pre-Spring Boot). Don't put a laundry list of every tech you've ever known on your resume. Put the stuff relevant to the job that you're applying for and that you feel comfortable being questioned about in an interview. What about hiring companies? Why do they put a laundry list of skills in the job postings? Mostly, I view that as a red flag for anyone considering applying. Perhaps they want to hire someone who's a "jack of all trades" (but master of none)? Perhaps they don't really know what their own developers actually do, and specifically what this particular role needs? Perhaps they just can't articulate their needs or... maybe they just don't care enough about who they hire to spend time writing a good job description?

I will admit I am guilty of listing a bunch of technologies I have used professionally or in a personal project. But I put this in very small text at the bottom of the resume, below even the education section (since I know nobody will look at it or care). The reason I do this personally is to avoid getting my resume filtered by some bot that didn’t find enough buzzwords inside I also do my best to make sure the technologies I list first can be connected to the little bullet points under the experience section, where I highlight what I actually did during my time at $company

The predominant role of a software engineer is learning (and hopefully communicating that understanding effectively). I could easily write a dozen or more pages in all the technologies I have used to create systems in production, it doesn't mean I remember them (that is what my blog and online books are for 😂) There are lots of things it's valuable for an engineer to know, but far less they need to know deeply. There isn't a quantified way of expressing you know a certain technology (especially programming languages), everyone has their own journey. Sharing what you know that is relevant to the new role is the aim of the interview. However, to get to that interview there can be many or large barriers to navigate. To expand on the last post. Adding a technology list like this is commonly done (and quite effective) in the specific case when you wish recruitment agencies or HR & less technical managers (often in larger companies) to find your CV from hundreds (thousands) of others. Less technical people may filter by doing a search by key word or phrase they are looking for. This approach is more valuable for roles and programming languages where there are high volumes of applicants, e.g Java & JavaScript. It's not really going to help with Clojure roles (not good ones anyway). However for an actual technical person reviewing your application this is rather unhelpful especially if it's a huge long list. The list doesn't qualify the experience even if years are added (are they consecutive years, what was actually done). Placing such a list at the end of the CV if needed (in a small font) can help to fit in both audiences. But it's not something I have done in the last decade as I am not applying for jobs with a high number of applicants or going through layers of HR. It's symptomatic of how little some companies invest in getting recruiting right.