Not OP but have worked in law offices before. Looking back, I seen to remember that our lawyers all had assistants who would do things for them. Research ABC, collate data, file paperwork, etc. Lower attorneys would have a shared assistant, higher ups had dedicated. I know many attorneys do all their own stuff as well, but having that set up seemed to let the people focus when they needed to, knowing other BS would be taken care of competently and on time.
I see very few devs (like, none) who get that sort of support system. At best, arguably, a good PM might help, but they also bring a l other layer with often extra steps to desk with.
A lawyer might argue that the greater support system you note is actually evidence-of, and a consequence-of the greater complexity of law relative to writing software.
Possibly, but thinking some more, not all lawyers work in such a fashion. Internal corporate lawyers may not have as much support, as they're more of a cost center than the money maker. The lawyers at the firm I worked at all were billable a lot, and were profit centers.
Correct. So ultimately the conclusion to this thread that one might draw is that the professions vary in complexity and nuance, even within themselves, and that attempting to fashion a hierarchy among them with incomplete information (and a hint of arrogance from those who are so inclined) is more likely to establish a false paradigm than to produce anything reflecting the complexities of any of the professions.
In short, I think we're arguing the same thing and I agree with us.
The easiest way to see this is; count the number of moving parts, and take into account the conditions required for success. Software is the most complex artefact humans produce.
>Also, the level of complexity/difficulty that a dev might face (but usually doesn't) is higher than in of these professions.
Fascinated to learn how you came to this conclusion.