|
valid question, I personally am a Generalist (not by choice, it chose me and I stuck with it due to needing work and a roof over my head.). On the pro side, I can fit into most situations, with a grasp of the different fields. on the con side; well, Some want that Specialist.
As for finding work, the money and jobs are there,for the experience and knowledge, I am always practising and reading up.
Heck, I still keep up on my other career option; Chef work. For example, I'm making Duck l'orange this weekend.
[append]
I haven't had an issue with "good" / "high" pay ether. 
/////////////////
-Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
modified 12-Sep-12 11:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
You're probably more of a specialist than you realize; anyone who focuses on .NET development can be considered a specialist, as opposed to people who develop software in general, or who do general IT work and sometimes write scripts and programs.
It's more of a fuzzy spectrum than a black-and-white category thing.
|
|
|
|
|
comment from my co-worker after showing the article;
"if you think about it .. according to the general public outside IT .. you specialize in IT .. "
he does have a point 
/////////////////
-Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
|
|
|
|
|
i chose the path of maximum employment: when necessary, find a new job. don't sweat the details, because it's all database stuff, in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you work in a niche market you are probably more of a generalist than you might think: even if you call yourself a .Net specialist (which part?) you still require other skills to enable you to do your job.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
"We need both, and we need good ones"
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I have been working with XAML based technologies for the last few years, and being specialized in WPF/Silverlight has kept me working and getting better pay everytime. I do end up working with other technologies, which helps me be a generalist. I have found, as a contractor, trying to get work as a general .NET developer is difficult. However, WPF is easy. There are a limited number of people out there that have extensive experience in this technology, and working in XAML is very different from C#. However, the issue is that I have been moving to stay working.
|
|
|
|
|
Since 2010, the developer job market in Texas has been improving a lot; now, .NET generalists and XAML specialists are both in such high demand that there are significantly more job openings than qualified applicants.
It's probably the same in other places, and I think your increased opportunity and success has more to do with what year it is than with what technologies you're using.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that to get a job in ASP.NET, you also have to show a lot of experience. ASP.NET is not easy if you get into where things are done, and knowing it intuitively. Think it would be hard to find work as a WinForm specialist, but I really do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
I am in a very specific IT field, but still consider myself a generalist. I consistently find myself put on the team that researches, tests, and implements new ideas with new technologies. As stated in an earlier response, I didn't choose it necessarily, it chose me.
|
|
|
|
|
In an interview at TechCrunch Disrupt, Mark Zuckerberg said that one of the company's biggest mobile missteps was 'betting on HTML 5 instead of native.' [Watch the interview on ITworld]
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if is for that or something else but I've said it more than once that Facebook is the worse app I have on my phone.
Comunities appart, G+ app is just fabulous... shame no one's there! 
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: Comunities appart, G+ app is just fabulous... shame no one's there!
Yep, same problem with Skype vs. VSee. I vastly prefer the latter, but no-one uses it so I am stuck with the former.
|
|
|
|
|
I think HTML 5 is a pipe dream.
The majority of applications don't need to run on every form factor.
The majority of applications aren't wanted on every form factor.
The majority of applications cannot be useful on a 3 inch and a 17 inch screen without one or both presentations suffering.
It doesn't matter what you add to the standard - asking any one application to handle a 17 inch screen and a 3 inch screen, a keyboard, a mouse, and touch is ridiculous from the outset. The HTML hoopla is marketing and nothing more than an attempt to sell a bloated, ridiculous development stack.
The average consumer is going to want to spend money on an application optimized for their particular hardware - the phrase "It runs everywhere" doesn't make a difference to a guy who only has a tablet or phone. Most people don't own "everywhere" - or use different form factors for different applications.
|
|
|
|
|
But isn't the whole point with HTML5 to be able to address nearly all platforms in a way that an application can be used?
If you only focus on native apps, you will probably end up supporting just a few platforms, leaving out a lot of potential users, which would be more than happy to have "just" an HTML5 app.
I won’t not use no double negatives.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree that is the point of HTML.
I think it's terribly mis-directed.
If you'd like give me an example of an application that would work just fine on a 3" screen, a 17" screen, and a 42" screen all while handling a keyboard, mouse, touch screen and XBOX 360 controller (something more than a video player) I'd find your argument more compelling. I'm talking a theoretical application here - it doesn't have to actually exist.
What I find difficult to swallow is the idea that some glorious standard is going to make all that possible while previous versions of the standard couldn't get a web page to render the same way in different browsers running on the same hardware and the same OS. Think about that for a moment - same hardware/same OS still doesn't work and yet they are reaching for something so far above and beyond that.
And that is the big problem.
When I go to spend $$$$ on applications I'm going to want something that is optimized in every way to work on the device I'm using. I don't want to play Left 4 Dead on my phone and I don't want to keep a contact list on my Xbox and I don't want to use Excel on my iPad. People who think that they need that are known as 'tools'.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree you, but...
MehGerbil wrote: give me an example of an application that would work just fine on a 3" screen, a
17" screen, and a 42" screen all while handling a keyboard, mouse, touch screen
and XBOX 360 controller
Probably a "Hello World" app would do it if you use any of the proposed interfaces to exit the app.
|
|
|
|
|
Philip F. wrote: But isn't the whole point with HTML5 to be able to address nearly all platforms in a way that an application can be used?
But, like every pipe dream of this sort before it (see: Java), it restricts you to the lowest common denominator. Native still rules for performance and features on every platform for any app that isn't a static webpage.
The end user doesn't give a toss if the developer had to have 18 code branches to keep up with it all, which you always end up doing with these "run everywhere" ideas anyway.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do
When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
|
|
|
|
|
In reality, HTML was only designed for presenting text, and maybe a few tables and images and links.
=====
\ | /
\|/
|
|-----|
| |
|_ |
_) | /
_) __/_
_) ____
| /|
| / |
| |
|-----|
|
=====
===
=
|
|
|
|
|
Gee. Seems to me that all of a sudden the concept of WPF/Silverlight with MVVM where can create different front ends (Views) for the same ViewModel makes sense. Create a different front end for different environments, but can keep all the plumbing
|
|
|
|
|
..Zuckerberg on "mistakes", without mentioning his IPO?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I wish all of my mistakes landed me several billion dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
At the extremely basic level, there are basically two good qualities that each programmer should strive for: programming skill and employee skill. Programming skill is basically the ability to write good, solid, performant, maintainable, and all-the-other-desireable-code-adjectives code. This is what coders tend to spend their time harping on and debating about and reading about. Employee skill is the ability to be a good employee and coworker. This means being responsive, being able to communicate well, hitting deadlines, being open to feedback, being able to explain complex things clearly, stuff like that. You can get far without being a great coder.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodrigo wouldn't do well in a team environment, but it's hard to believe that Gabriella "hasn't missed a deadline." Delivering buggy code on time isn't my definition of "meeting the deadline".
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you on this. But I've had many instances where management has said, "I don't care if it doesn't work, get it into production." Seen many instances where code that is not ready has been released because management is more concerned about meeting the deadline rather than the quality of the product.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
