Bill,

Your comments are well stated and you have made some compelling points.

I realized I went beyond the breadth of your and Ed's focus in my post. However, I did consider it an important dimension as it relates to the "success" of one's career in this business.

Indeed, embracing new technologies requires a constant learning curve ride and the constant reallocation/realignment of personal resources. As such, there are tradeoffs as well as wasted time learning technologies that are replaced before they are even implemented in the real world. We are the "real" front-line testers. To an extent, I have a problem with this and MS has even admitted this as a problem. I have no clue as to the solution - it's part of the game. Unfortunately, it's this part of the game that makes me wonder just how many more years I can keep up with it.


>>I think the ones who will succeed will be those who have acquired other skills in addition to programming.
>
>While I agree with what you are saying to some degree, I think that this is beyond what Ed and I were referring to.
>
>Yes, skills beyond programming are important, but if you look at the context of what we were talking about, the scope of my statement is simply in reference to the issue of the value of learning new technology. My point was simply to state that adaptation is a more robust mentality than conservation. I ventured no opinion on the larger condition of what makes someone valuable to the business world--but since you brought it up :)
>
>
>>For example, who would you hire to develop a specialized commercial leasing system - a skilled programmer or a skilled programmer with an extensive background and/or degrees in accounting and finance?
>
>I assume you would say the latter. I don't know that this is always true, business expertise does not necessarily make you a good programmer, just as programming knowledge doesn't necessarily make the controller a good controller. I have seen many Business experts muck up a system design by being too involved in the "technical" side of things, I have also seen programmers who had domain knowledge ignore the business expert, and so miss the specific system requirements.
>
>Given two programmers of identical skill, one that knows the business domain may have the edge, but I think even more valuable is a skilled programmer with the practiced ability to acquire the domain requirements in the course of the project. Here is how I see them broken down:
>
>1) The skilled programmer--knows the technical side only.
>2) The skill programner w/domain knowledge.
>3) The skilled programmer who has also developed skill in gleaning requirements.
>
>Even if you grant that 2) is specifically superior to 1) (maybe, see above), this advantage at best is limited in scope to projects in that domain.
>
>Number 3) IMO is superior to both. It is the evolutionaryily (new word?) superior position (ie more adaptable) AND from the business perspective since rather than trying to find a programmer who happens to have that specific knowledge needed for the project, you can simply bring in a 3) developer and be confident that they can do the job.
>
>The problem with 2) is that they are forced into the position of having two areas of expertise instead of one--development skills, AND domain specfic skills. I mean do you go and acquire advanced degrees in accounting (CPA level or above) AND keep up on all the new technology? That is a tall order. Or is it better to keep up on the technology, and hone your design and requirements gathering skills--a part of the field you have chosen.
>
>I vote for option two; "Let Caesar have that which is Caesar's", and I would say that the are others who agree with me (check out the XP stuff for example http://www.xprogramming.com/)
>
>
>>Of course we need to stay on top of the new stuff, but that is not nor should it be the whole picture.
>
>I agree there is more to it than just keeping up with new stuff, yet we must just as Doctors, Lawyers, and other professionals must do so. And just as it is for them, knowledge of other areas is helpful. But the best are those that can handle the area of expertise, AND also be able to deal with the new, and unknown.
>An example: I am aware of a Strike situation where the Union was in a lockout situation. The company hired a lawyer without specific domain knowledge (he wasn't a labor attorney he was a newspaper attorney, but he HAD worked for them before; they were a newspaper). It was viewed as a mistake, and the first couple of hearings, he did get outmanuvered. But he hit the books, and in short order made a good fight of it--against big shot labor attorneys brought in special by the big name union. In the end, the company won the unfair labor practice suit(trust me they shouldn't have), AND stopped the contract. I bet they hire him again.
>
>>I have found that most companies put a premium on programmers who are highly skilled in areas such as accounting, finance, manufacturing processes, etc
>
>Agreed. But I don't know that this proves that it is in fact better. It may just be that they are judging on things they don't know.
>
>Anyway, we could speculate all day on this. Bottom line, I was only referring to the advantage that those who are keen to learn new technology have over those who cling too hard to old technology. As for the other stuff, well there is my 2cents.
>
>Best,
>Bill