4 ms·

"Technology jobs are very highly specialised. And I'm not just speaking of computer tech." I would argue that computer tech is kind of an exception. I can see

by Kurtz79 11y ago

"Technology jobs are very highly specialised. And I'm not just speaking of computer tech." I would argue that computer tech is kind of an exception. I can see a Nuclear or Aerospace Engineer having trouble adapting his knowledge and skills to other professions, since that knowledge is deeply tied to the domain, but a Perl (or C++/Java or whatever) hacker should't really have too many problems in transitioning to another language. That they would find difficulties in finding a new job because dumb HR recruiters see 10 years of Perl experience in the resume as opposed to the "10 years of Swift" (sic) they are looking for is another matter...

jhallenworld 11y ago
I agree. Actually it's interesting to see how IBM is trying very hard to stay relevant as far as programming languages in their products. If you look at the video in this "API Connect" demo, you can see support for microservices in Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, Node.js, Go, and Swift. As an old time C/C++ guy it's difficult to determine which of these are fads. Also no C# support, but maybe this will change with the opening of .net. https://developer.ibm.com/apimanagement/2016/02/18/announcing-ibm-api-connect-a-complete-api-lifecycle-offering/ https://developer.ibm.com/apimanagement/2016/02/18/announcin...
dredmorbius 11y ago
Yes and no. Yes, there's a fair bit of specific domain knowledge, but it's also built on top of a bunch of common foundations: physics, calculus, chemistry, differential equations. And the tools in much of technical work have been converging for years -- technical and scientific computing require rudiments of programming (Fortran, still, or more modern languages), source code management, project management, and a heavy helping of sociological people understanding (look up Charles Perrow's books). That can transfer, at least in theory. Whether or not it does, of course, and whether or not firms, organisations, or government sector are interested in hiring is a whole 'nother question. I'm reminded of a video on the old Soviet rocket motors with boosted performance (the fuel pump turbine exhaust was vented into the rocket combustion chamber rather than offboard, for another 10% or so gain in thrust) -- though attempted use resulted in an explosion only a few seconds after takeoff and loss of the mission. In the video, however, several former Soviet rocket scientists talk about their experience after the Soviet space program was shut down. Rocket scientists, literally, with no place to turn for employment. That's where you start thinking about inefficiencies in usefully allocating talent. Neither the Soviet nor American economic systems seem to have a particularly good answer for that. Though in the US, Wall Street seems to have a capacity for sponging up some of the potential. I don't find that particularly useful. The Egyptians built pyramids. I wonder if that wasn't in part a large skills-retention and problem-solving exercise.

by Kurtz79 11y ago

jhallenworld 11y ago

I agree. Actually it's interesting to see how IBM is trying very hard to stay relevant as far as programming languages in their products. If you look at the video in this "API Connect" demo, you can see support for microservices in Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, Node.js, Go, and Swift. As an old time C/C++ guy it's difficult to determine which of these are fads. Also no C# support, but maybe this will change with the opening of .net. https://developer.ibm.com/apimanagement/2016/02/18/announcing-ibm-api-connect-a-complete-api-lifecycle-offering/ https://developer.ibm.com/apimanagement/2016/02/18/announcin...

dredmorbius 11y ago

Yes and no. Yes, there's a fair bit of specific domain knowledge, but it's also built on top of a bunch of common foundations: physics, calculus, chemistry, differential equations. And the tools in much of technical work have been converging for years -- technical and scientific computing require rudiments of programming (Fortran, still, or more modern languages), source code management, project management, and a heavy helping of sociological people understanding (look up Charles Perrow's books). That can transfer, at least in theory. Whether or not it does, of course, and whether or not firms, organisations, or government sector are interested in hiring is a whole 'nother question. I'm reminded of a video on the old Soviet rocket motors with boosted performance (the fuel pump turbine exhaust was vented into the rocket combustion chamber rather than offboard, for another 10% or so gain in thrust) -- though attempted use resulted in an explosion only a few seconds after takeoff and loss of the mission. In the video, however, several former Soviet rocket scientists talk about their experience after the Soviet space program was shut down. Rocket scientists, literally, with no place to turn for employment. That's where you start thinking about inefficiencies in usefully allocating talent. Neither the Soviet nor American economic systems seem to have a particularly good answer for that. Though in the US, Wall Street seems to have a capacity for sponging up some of the potential. I don't find that particularly useful. The Egyptians built pyramids. I wonder if that wasn't in part a large skills-retention and problem-solving exercise.