Pros: One of the major pros is that you get to own projects, regardless of whether you are considered 'management'. That certainly makes things exciting.

Cons: Almost all the focus is on getting stuff out there 'fast!' Good coding style and good software design aren't as important. While that may work in the short run, in the long run it causes a lot of headaches in terms of software maintenance. But the management doesn't care about that. They just want you to churn more software out, as fast as you can. And of course, there is nothing called 'testing'. It's the developer's job, of course. And you still have to get things out there 'in time'.

Pros: Everything is team-dependent. Pay, work ethics, quality of work, etc. In general, pay will be good in any team. If you are in a relatively new team, then you may be using C++ and somewhat latest technologies.

Cons: Most teams will not tolerate tardiness and late arrivals; however, late departures are always welcome here (in fact, much needed). Fortran and really old technologies are still prevalent in some teams. If you work there for 4 years, you are rendered almost useless for any other company. Things are changing, though, and it's much better. There is definitely a lot of politics, which is not obvious to leaf nodes.

Pros: Good training program for entry-level people. Quite a few smart people around. Great offices to work in: very attractive, good location, communal kitchen, lecture theatres, etc. The office in general feels quite busy and bustling. Lots of perks like free theatre/exhibition tickets, events, etc. Good amount of responsibility from early on. Good pay. Good name to have on the CV.

Cons: Lots of the codebase is pretty antiquated – Fortran code, old 1000-line C functions from the 1980s, etc. Lots of proprietary stuff you have to learn that isn't transferable, so you run the risk of getting a bit institutionalized. Also, Bloomberg often unnecessarily has its own little version of something (file I/O libraries, etc.). Senior management have their heads in the clouds and are fairly political. Many have been there since the dawn of time and have an outdated view of how the company works. They will push through initiatives that they have 'sold' to their superiors, even if they just don't make sense at ground level. One of those companies (and there are many) that sell themselves to applicants as having a 'flat' structure, when what this actually means is that hardly anyone ever gets moved up. There is also lots of bureaucracy and a culture of micromanagement – every working hour must be ticketed, accounted for, etc.