4 ms·

Sure, it's possible to do a lot of things with a computer as a generalist, but as soon as you really need to start digging in and getting to details, you need t

by hvs 15y ago

Sure, it's possible to do a lot of things with a computer as a generalist, but as soon as you really need to start digging in and getting to details, you need the specialists. Those that know all of the nooks and crannies of the technology you're using. There are always going to be general concepts that apply across different technologies, but that doesn't mean that you can just have a bunch of generalists that produce. Just one example without even leaving the software development world: If I'm a Ruby developer (I'm not) would you hire me to work on your trading system built in C++?

moultano 15y ago
I don't know why this struck me now but hasn't otherwise. It feels self-limiting to say "I'm a Ruby developer," but it doesn't to say "I write in Ruby," or "I've written in Ruby." I feel uncomfortable making the things that I do, or the things that I have done or do right now, the identity that I use to classify myself.
DanielRibeiro 15y ago
Sure! As long as you understand the problems and theories that are important to the domain (let it be machine learning, artificial intelligence, parallel/distributed programming, combinatorial optimization or cryptography), the language is the easiest thing to learn. On the other hand, if I need some very specific optimization that only people that know C++ intimately know, then such knowledge would not help me. On the other hand, I may only contract such specialists, depending on how often their specialty will be needed.
r00fus 15y ago
> Just one example without even leaving the software development world: If I'm a Ruby developer (I'm not) would you hire me to work on your trading system built in C++? It depends on a) my assessment of your transferrable skills and b) your domain knowledge. In fact, coding language skills are not the best indicator of whether a prospective employee is a good fit for a particular position.
jpitz 15y ago
We're a java shop. Hasn't stopped us from hiring smart, motivated people who've been specializing in other languages. Worked out quite well every time we've done it, too.

by hvs 15y ago

moultano 15y ago

I don't know why this struck me now but hasn't otherwise. It feels self-limiting to say "I'm a Ruby developer," but it doesn't to say "I write in Ruby," or "I've written in Ruby." I feel uncomfortable making the things that I do, or the things that I have done or do right now, the identity that I use to classify myself.

DanielRibeiro 15y ago

Sure! As long as you understand the problems and theories that are important to the domain (let it be machine learning, artificial intelligence, parallel/distributed programming, combinatorial optimization or cryptography), the language is the easiest thing to learn. On the other hand, if I need some very specific optimization that only people that know C++ intimately know, then such knowledge would not help me. On the other hand, I may only contract such specialists, depending on how often their specialty will be needed.

r00fus 15y ago

> Just one example without even leaving the software development world: If I'm a Ruby developer (I'm not) would you hire me to work on your trading system built in C++? It depends on a) my assessment of your transferrable skills and b) your domain knowledge. In fact, coding language skills are not the best indicator of whether a prospective employee is a good fit for a particular position.

jpitz 15y ago

We're a java shop. Hasn't stopped us from hiring smart, motivated people who've been specializing in other languages. Worked out quite well every time we've done it, too.