I don't like my job. It challenges me, it tests me, and, to quote Khan, it tasks me. But, in the end, I end up using a programming language that is much lower-level than I like.

[Disclaimer: major digression. I'm just too vain to edit it out. Geek.speek ahead. Proceed at your own peril.]

What's a high-level vs. a low-level programming language? It'd be like giving you directions to the store.

High-level: "Turn right on Lakehurst, then look for the Esso station. It's in that strip-mall, toward the back."

Low-level: Get your keys out. Select the fob to unlock the car. Press the left button. Approach the car. With your right hand, grasp the door handle...

The appeal of low-level languages? Efficiency. Of execution, that is. It certainly isn't very efficient to program. Nuance (no, not the political sense.) I can lay out a GUI with exacting exactness. Depth of features - I can program network applications, or XML remoting, or ... a bunch of other buzzwords I haven't the foggiest notion what they mean.

The appeal of high-level languages? I can concentrate on the problem, not on how I split it and then solve each individual piece.

Hm, another analogy comes to mind. "Paint this plate." If that's the job, then with a high-level language I break out the brush and go to work. However, with a low-level one, I first shatter the plate, then paint each individual shard before reassembling the pieces and cringing.

[Okay, I'm going to try to talk like a normal person again, at least as normal as people get around here. At least one person I know goes to work on a Segway, if that tells you anything.]

I received my performance review today. My boss and I have already discussed it for a few weeks so the rating is no surprise, though the compensation is, and pleasantly so.

Cutting to the chase, my rating is 10%. That roughly corresponds to my 'promote-ability.' Given what I did last year, the chances of me being promoted are near-zero.

Now, the compensation is the bonus and stock and raise. My compensation is on par with an average performer, not a bottom-feeder. The reason for this seeming contradiction is that I was doing a critical job, but not in a way that showed initiative nor actual software engineering.

I'm a software tester by title, but here the official title is Software Development Engineer in Test. I'm supposed to be engineering software, not just executing tests. Well, my boss was realistic enough to understand I was also serving as release engineer for a near-constant stream of releases (11 in 9 months) so he understood both my contribution and my reason for not doing more engineering.

Well, part of the problem is that I don't like our programming language, and using another is not really an option. I do have a high-level language (PowerShell) that I use, but it's designed to be a utility language, not a developer's language. In other words, it does things in the rough better than it allows for exacting exactness in doing things.

As I said, I knew I was going to get the low score on the rating. I wasn't expecting a 'normal contributor's' compensation, however. A pleasant surprise.