As someone who has worked for five separate startups, I have to disagree. While you do get close to your teammates, in my experience the managers in startup-land tend to be a lot less flexible because they have their vision of how something is supposed to be done.

I work for a giant evil megacorporation now, and I honestly feel like I have more freedom here to explore new stuff than I ever did as a JS/PHP/GOLANG/MONGODB Ninja/Rockstar/Guru in startup land.

It's an interesting dynamic. BigCo doesn't live or die by a single employee or customer, so they can afford for devs to explore tech/ideas/etc.

But in terms of actually commercializing/releasing something, there's so many hoops to jump through that good ideas simply get stifled.

Startups are the opposite - they can ill afford a developer spending a week learning NewStack, but if someone floats an idea that fits (or improves) their business model, they can execute in the blink of an eye.

As with most things in life, there's pros and cons to both.

Worked at 3 startups and 2 mega-corps and had the absolute opposite experience.

The only time a manager at a startup was trying to stringently manage me was when he was hired from a mega-corp. Lot of startups make that mistake.

For me, startups still remain the best place to explore new technologies and capabilities (incl. personal upskilling) under a deadline (as opposed to personal projects).

The (in?)famous article Don't Call Yourself a Programmer [0] argues otherwise. The author warns against working for a startup, unless you're the founder or committed to what he calls a lifestyle. Instead, he argues you can work for a hi-tech big corp, enjoying autonomy and fun projects as well as a good work-life balance.

Not that I agree with everything in that essay -- some pretty cynical and controversial statements there -- but what he says about startups seems worth considering.

[0] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...

That's a great article. I especially love the bit about equity, which ought to be valued at $0 for all practical decision-making purposes.

My experiences with the tech giants have featured neither autonomy, fun, nor anything resembling a work-life balance; they do pay well, but not well enough to make that kind of experience worthwhile. Life is here to be lived, not put off for later, and I'm not going to waste mine grinding away on a bunch of tedious bullshit so long as I have an alternative.

Then again, here I am writing from my cubicle at yet another tech giant, which recently acquired the startup I was working for, and it's been a much better experience so far. Who knows? Maybe I'll end up sticking around for a while.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I definitely agree that life's too short to waste it grinding away at tedious tasks. I'm certainly not arguing for doing boring stuff at a big corp!

>you can work for a hi-tech big corp, enjoying autonomy and fun projects as well as a good work-life balance.

The big companies I have worked with have always had legacy software and slow moving projects. (Edit: 2 out of 3 of the big companies I have worked for. One was very cool, but the location was absolutely terrible).

I suppose the author of TFA argues you should choose your big corp wisely ;)

My own experience has been mostly low/mid-tier companies (software factories mostly) and they are terrible: slow moving, legacy and uninteresting projects; low motivation; no highly qualified people to learn anything from; nobody cares if the damn thing works.

My current job is at a relatively big company. Fast moving projects, interesting tech (depending on the project), high motivation, lots of very knowledgeable coworkers. Granted, my experience is a really small sample (1 out of 1) and I've never worked for a startup so I can't compare. One of my friends has been struggling with his own startup for some years, and while the tech is interesting, his day to day is very stressful (and highly focused on staying afloat) and I wouldn't want it for me.

I know a fair number of people who had fun, interesting careers in their 20s. But when we talk about investments and saving, they all seem to suddenly realize that time is limited, and if you’re going to trade it for money, it’s best to get as much money for your time as you comfortably can.

I feel like a good stage play or even book has been written about this.

Not sure if you have a specific one in mind but I for one am curious.