"A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” - Charles F. Kettering
SCJP 6, OCPJWCD
James Clarks wrote:
Keep in mind that technical recruiters are usually individuals that were poor programmers and could not understand the complexities of software design. So, inwardly they probably have a tinge of resentment and envy, either consciously or sub-consciously.
"A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” - Charles F. Kettering
SCJP 6, OCPJWCD
Nidhi Sar wrote:
Unfortunately, the technical recruiters do not share my sunny view of life.
The job descriptions they post out for programmers remind me vaguely of commodities-trading : "8+ years experience in Java", "5 years experience in .Net".
James Clarks wrote:
Human Resources staff = good chance at proper position and fair interview process
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
Kavita Tipnis wrote:+1 I agree, I just have 2 yrs 'on the job' experience but everyday I learn something new.
Kavita Tipnis wrote:I guess for any profession, if you cease to learn new things, you will cease to exist ;-)
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
James Clarks wrote:"Most companies"? For how many companies do you have the details of their hiring practices? Do you have a list? How many companies exist in the world? How many companies exist in your country?
James Clarks wrote:an excuse you keep running through your head to explain why you cannot find a position.
James Clarks wrote:This may sound harsh but I am trying to help you.
"A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” - Charles F. Kettering
SCJP 6, OCPJWCD
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
James Clarks wrote:Your best bet, which worked for me many times, is to find positions being handled by the employer's human resources staff. Human Resources personnel typically have a better understanding of the company, the "personality" of the organization, the supervisor and best hiring practices in general.
Keep in mind that technical recruiters are usually individuals that were poor programmers and could not understand the complexities of software design. So, inwardly they probably have a tinge of resentment and envy, either consciously or sub-consciously.
Burk Hufnagel wrote:Nidhi,
Where did those quotes come from? Was one of James' posts deleted?
Burk
"A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” - Charles F. Kettering
SCJP 6, OCPJWCD
Nidhi Sar wrote:
Burk Hufnagel wrote:Nidhi,
Where did those quotes come from? Was one of James' posts deleted?
Burk
Hmmm, you're right, Burk. I don't see James' second post any longer in the thread. I think it was deleted.
Getting back to the crux of the question: Is it better to have a variety of experience in different platforms or deep experience on one (the job descriptions seem to prefer the second one)???
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
My question: Is it better to choose a technology right at the beginning of your career and then just hang-on to it (and newer versions of it) for life?
Or is it better to work on different types of projects and get a big picture idea?
Isn't there value in the latter?
The technical recruiters certainly don't seem to think so.
Burk Hufnagel wrote:
Kavita Tipnis wrote:+1 I agree, I just have 2 yrs 'on the job' experience but everyday I learn something new.
Kavita,
I've been doing this for decades and I still learn new things - maybe not daily, but it sure seems that way. For me, that's part of the fun and challenge of this field.![]()
Kavita Tipnis wrote:I guess for any profession, if you cease to learn new things, you will cease to exist ;-)
Agreed. However, most professions don't have as many new things showing so often.![]()
Burk
===Vyas Sanzgiri===
My Blog
Vyas Sanzgiri wrote:How long do you keep learning? New languages and frameworks are more frequent now - who knows in the next few yrs we might see new languages/techniques every year.
Most professions having things to build on is a very good plus I believe. I think in programming, new languages and frameworks are shaking my fundamentals![]()
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
===Vyas Sanzgiri===
My Blog
Vyas Sanzgiri wrote:Not for me. I think there are many more things other than work and programming. So "wide and shallow" allows me to use all my skills to "get a job done". That is all I care about work. I know what I am learning or working on right now will have absolutely no
use after the next 20 yrs when there will be a new language or framework or technique around. So my take on this topic is learn on "mature techniques" Let all the hype settle down and impt bugs be fixed before you look at the next big thing
![]()
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
Burk Hufnagel wrote:
As for things you're learning being absolutely no use later, that is almost certainly true for details, but the underlying principles will probably still be useful. For example, I learned C++ back in the mid to late 80's and while I don't do C++ anymore, the Object Oriented principles still apply when I'm programming in Java.
Burk
===Vyas Sanzgiri===
My Blog
Vyas Sanzgiri wrote:I think the underlying process is helpful only for mature languages and techniques. C++ is a mature language still used. There are many techniques which were hyped but never got into the mainstream. It is a waste of time learning such stuff.
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
Nidhi Sar wrote:Hello Jacquie and welcome! I'd be very interested in hearing your and other ranchers' view on this:
In my many years of software development, I have worked in many different technologies (Java, Microsoft, Mainframe, CASE tools, Internet development yada..yada...yada). Having this experience in different types of projects, methinks, leads to a good feel on the way a technology problem should be solved and how best to implement the solution. For example if I decide to build an application in Objective C for i-phone (both technologies that I have zero experience on), it wouldn't be difficult to learn the technologies and implement it - given the many, many times I have started from zero and then implemented the solution successfully.
Unfortunately, the technical recruiters do not share my sunny view of life.
The job descriptions they post out for programmers remind me vaguely of commodities-trading : "8+ years experience in Java", "5 years experience in .Net".
My question: Is it better to choose a technology right at the beginning of your career and then just hang-on to it (and newer versions of it) for life? Or is it better to work on different types of projects and get a big picture idea?
Isn't there value in the latter? The technical recruiters certainly don't seem to think so.
Thanks,
Nidhi
James Clarks wrote:Good question. It is better to have a wide variety of experience. This includes software technologies and also includes functional areas.
It sounds like you are not finding the technical recruiters that understand this. They do exist, but are hard to find. Also, many technical recruiters that
I have had discussions with in the past did not have the skillset to accurately assess software skills and related pyschological characteristics for various types of positions. Since many technical recruiters work of a "sales" commission and there are so many "phony" Java programmers in the world, their job is very difficult.
Your best bet, which worked for me many times, is to find positions being handled by the employer's human resources staff. Human Resources personnel typically have a better understanding of the company, the "personality" of the organization, the supervisor and best hiring practices in general.
Human Resources staff = good chance at proper position and fair interview process
Technical Recruiters = slight chance at proper position match and faulty interview process
Keep in mind that technical recruiters are usually individuals that were poor programmers and could not understand the complexities of software design. So, inwardly they probably have a tinge of resentment and envy, either consciously or sub-consciously.
Good luck!
Jacquie Barker wrote:[What you should do is focus on learning new paradigms as they emerge -- really understand the object paradigm; really understand the notion of thin client web-based computing -- and you will be able to easily learn how a given language, or vendor, implements the paradigm.
"A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” - Charles F. Kettering
SCJP 6, OCPJWCD
Great advice, James!
I'd add one more thing: if you can bypass Human Resources and get directly to the hiring manager of an organization, you're in the best shape of all! That's why networking, so as to know who such people are before they resort to hiring a recruiter, really pays off!
No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar.
Sandeep
chris webster wrote:It's a tough balance to find, but it's probably better to be a master of some trades, than a Jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
SCJP, SCJD, SCEA 5 "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime. |