4 ms·

This is always a risk with new tools and techs. Thankfully there are sometimes enough early adopters to help keep the new thing in motion and improving. Consi

by blunte 9y ago

This is always a risk with new tools and techs. Thankfully there are sometimes enough early adopters to help keep the new thing in motion and improving. Considering that a lot of code that gets written is thrown away or otherwise doesn't survive for years, a bit of risky experimentation isn't actually as risky as it seems. Even though I'm one of the never-satisfied/always-seeking-newer-better group (and my list of used and discarded tools/languages is very long), I do sometimes wonder if we would be better off with fewer choices and more effort spent on the concepts and methods of software development rather than on the tools.

mooreds 9y ago
> This is always a risk with new tools and techs. Absolutely. Whenever I see a new project, I look at business risk and technology risk. Either one is OK, but both are not. (I picked that up from someone, don't remember who). I think that there's real value to being a Tom Bombadill (and really learning a language/framework/problem space deeply) as opposed to being a Gandalf. However, one fundamental issue is it's easier be a consultant and speaker if you are focused on the new shiny objects, and so much of what is written is from that perspective.
- blunte 9y ago
  I have pondered about this depth vs breadth approach for some time. My path has made me a generalist who learns and does whatever I think is necessary in a given situation. This is great because I can do anything. But I envy the domain experts who do one (or a related few) things VERY well. Perhaps it depends much on the mind of the person; I don't think I could just focus on one thing forever. But while the new shiny tech guys may seem to have more opportunities, I believe the domain experts may get paid more and have more of their career time spent as "recognized leaders". It's probably good that people are all different, and both types (and all in between) exist.
  - mooreds 9y ago
    I think it's also a risk tolerance thing. To analogize, if you are a general carpenter, you can always find work, but it will be at a lower rate. However, it will be varied. If you are a fine cabinet carpenter, your work will likely be more focused, possibly more repetitive, more lucrative, and harder to find (you'll have to seek out the folks who need really really nice cabinets).
    - blunte 9y ago
      Exactly. And maybe the grass is always greener, but sometimes I envy the COBOL guy who earns a small fortune doing something that doesn't involve learning a new language and framework every two years.
  - rkangel 9y ago
    I work for a consultancy (both general consultancy and engineer), and the phrase they like to use is "a T-Shaped consultant". Meaning that you have a broad base of skills and one specialism. For us, most people fitting that model works pretty well.

by blunte 9y ago

mooreds 9y ago

> This is always a risk with new tools and techs. Absolutely. Whenever I see a new project, I look at business risk and technology risk. Either one is OK, but both are not. (I picked that up from someone, don't remember who). I think that there's real value to being a Tom Bombadill (and really learning a language/framework/problem space deeply) as opposed to being a Gandalf. However, one fundamental issue is it's easier be a consultant and speaker if you are focused on the new shiny objects, and so much of what is written is from that perspective.

blunte 9y ago
I have pondered about this depth vs breadth approach for some time. My path has made me a generalist who learns and does whatever I think is necessary in a given situation. This is great because I can do anything. But I envy the domain experts who do one (or a related few) things VERY well. Perhaps it depends much on the mind of the person; I don't think I could just focus on one thing forever. But while the new shiny tech guys may seem to have more opportunities, I believe the domain experts may get paid more and have more of their career time spent as "recognized leaders". It's probably good that people are all different, and both types (and all in between) exist.
- mooreds 9y ago
  I think it's also a risk tolerance thing. To analogize, if you are a general carpenter, you can always find work, but it will be at a lower rate. However, it will be varied. If you are a fine cabinet carpenter, your work will likely be more focused, possibly more repetitive, more lucrative, and harder to find (you'll have to seek out the folks who need really really nice cabinets).
  - blunte 9y ago
    Exactly. And maybe the grass is always greener, but sometimes I envy the COBOL guy who earns a small fortune doing something that doesn't involve learning a new language and framework every two years.
- rkangel 9y ago
  I work for a consultancy (both general consultancy and engineer), and the phrase they like to use is "a T-Shaped consultant". Meaning that you have a broad base of skills and one specialism. For us, most people fitting that model works pretty well.