Beyond the Feature Factory: Elliot Morris Challenges Premature Seniority in Software Engineering

Software engineer Elliot Morris has ignited discussion with his recent essay 'Beating the Tutorial', challenging conventional career progression in tech. Morris contends that the industry mistakenly equates the ability to deliver ticketed features with senior-level expertise, creating systemic risks for software quality and organizational resilience.

Most engineers recognize the core loop Morris describes: receive a ticket, implement the requested behavior, ensure basic code quality, and deploy. Organizations often promote developers who demonstrate consistent delivery here—sometimes within just 2-3 years—labeling them 'senior' engineers. Morris calls this an industry-wide error: "Congratulations on beating the tutorial. The real journey has only just begun."

The crux of Morris' argument lies in the hidden cost of feature-centric development. Junior engineers operating in what he terms "feature mills" frequently implement solutions that meet immediate ticket requirements but erode long-term system health. These contributions, while appearing valuable on the surface, can become net-negative when considering technical debt, scalability constraints, and maintenance burdens. Morris observes: "You've probably spent a significant part of your career being a net-negative contributor in terms of absolute product value."

This occurs because early-career engineers naturally focus on tactical execution. As Morris explains, "Creating any one single behavior in a computer system is almost always trivial." The true complexity emerges when engineers must evaluate dozens of implementation approaches against invisible constraints: business strategy, future scalability, cross-team dependencies, and ethical implications. When experienced engineers say something "can't be done easily," they often mean it can't be done without compromising system integrity.

Morris identifies LLMs as accelerants to this problem—enabling faster feature delivery without deeper understanding—but emphasizes the trend predates AI. The core issue remains organizational: rewarding output velocity over system stewardship. He warns this commoditizes engineering talent, benefiting "a privileged few at the detriment of all software users."

The path forward, according to Morris, lies in recognizing software engineering's real game: identifying solutions that leave systems "better than they were before." This requires synthesizing technical, business, and human factors into approaches that create exponential value. Such solutions aren't found in ticket descriptions but emerge from understanding how changes ripple through layered contexts—from code architecture to team dynamics.

For engineers, Morris' framework suggests reevaluating career milestones. Mastering Jira tickets might warrant a junior-to-mid-level transition, but seniority demands fluency in what he calls "the highly connotative property" of holistic system improvement. Organizations, meanwhile, must create environments where engineers can safely explore trade-offs beyond ticket completion. As Morris concludes: "Exploring the shape of this 'make better' quality across contexts is the actual game... and will take much, much longer than merely figuring out how to deliver features faster."