narrow-and-deep or shallow-but-wide .. what is the best strategy ?
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote:
pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it
Just be careful which field you specialise in. A number of years ago I was told I was the most advanced in the UK at the technology I was using, then discovered there were only three other companies using it, and not many more in the rest of the world. Made finding new jobs in it kind of tricky.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Honestly I believe a shallow-wide approach is better because you can do more in more areas and you can still dig down when time calls for, but, since I'm that profile myself, I feel this is not desired by companies who really want experts in a narrow field nowadays. However this trend of wanting experts might change again the future.
V.
(MQOTD rules and previous solutions) -
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Jack of all, and Master of one. This is advice I heard about 30 years ago, and I like it.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Wide Wide Wide if you are in it for the long term and the fun of it. Specialise on many different things during your career. If you follow the narrow and deep, you could be lucky, or you could be the equivalent of a bloody brilliant VB6 developer.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote:
That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Most team will have various specialists (more than one field) and multiple generalists. It would depend on which type of narrow field - it might not be the best strategy to specialize in something that is obsolete :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Wide Wide Wide if you are in it for the long term and the fun of it. Specialise on many different things during your career. If you follow the narrow and deep, you could be lucky, or you could be the equivalent of a bloody brilliant VB6 developer.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
I was a bloody brilliant minded VB6 developer... but that was ages ago :-)
-
I was a bloody brilliant minded VB6 developer... but that was ages ago :-)
-
It really depends on your own personal preference. Being a jack of all trade, but a master of none generally means there is a lot more variety on the work you do. But you never become an expert in anything This does give you a broad knowledge base for IT management, if that's what you want Everyone is different. Personally I like the variety of different technology and work as I get bored doing the same thing all the time.
I'm really the opposite. I'd rather be the expert in a given technology and do the same types of things over and over, doing them very well and with confidence. However, it seems my life has turned into shallow but wide... probably because it is far easier to find a job like that. However, I think having a deep knowledge of 1 thing provides a much better salary (as evidence by the hiring process). Nobody values shallow but wide... they just think you have only a shallow understanding of the handful of skills they want.
-
I have indeed. This latest question is related to my trying to decide whether it is worth my while undertaking the (significant) effort to learn the Modelling SDK to do CodeGen and DSL stuff or not...
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote:
pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Neither. If there's a requirement for a particular tech which you don't currently know, then learn it on the job. On the other hand, at my personal leisure, I peruse various techs, check out some of the forums, etc. My basic conclusion is that there is a matrix a multidimensional matrix: 1. lightweight frameworks 2. heavyweight kitchen sink frameworks A. compiled languages B. JIT languages C. script languages X. Windows Y. *Nix Z. Android / iOS / Xamarin and their ilk I like to live in the 1-B-X box, and I really don't like the 2-C-Y box. Everything else is "ok, I'll give that a try and see how it goes." However, the C box is subdivided into things like 1) Javascript (possibly unnecessary evil, still haven't looked at Dart and TypeScript), 2) Python (had a decent experience with it), 3) and Ruby on Rails (refuse to ever code in it again, I'm actually going to take it off my resume, even if it leaves huge gaps.) So, I think it's actually worthwhile to fill out the matrix some more, figure out where you're most comfortable, what things you'd like to learn, and what experiences you've had that you never want to repeat. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Both. But here's what I mean. Early on in your career you should: Be narrow and deep. Become an expert so you can get a specific job and get paid. Later on, as you progress in your career you should: Be (more) shallow and extremely wide. Know about a lot of things so you can know things are being done other ways so that when a problem arises you can go out, research it more in depth and make a good decision about whether or not you should incorporate that technology. That's why you really must be both. But give it time.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Deep understanding of computer science fundamentals. Wide knowledge of current computer technologies (which you can quickly pick up using your deep understanding of fundamentals).
-
Deep understanding of computer science fundamentals. Wide knowledge of current computer technologies (which you can quickly pick up using your deep understanding of fundamentals).
Best answer of the lot (says the geezer in the crowd).
Software Zen:
delete this; -
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Shallow but wide. Why? If you only know how to use a hammer..... If you know enough about the various tools you have available to you, you're much more likely to pick the correct one for the job. Then, once you start that job, you can go deeper if you haven't already done so before.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek saying in my mother language: "'n Halve verstand verg 'n goeie woord". Literal translation: Half a mind necessitates a good word. One meaning: To get someone to understand something partially, you need to describe it in complete detail.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
It depends what size company you'd rather work for. If a small startup then wider is better; i.e. since if there's only 5 of you, you'll be covering more roles. If a big enterprise deeper's better; i.e. there are people covering the other skillsets who you can get advise from (or whose areas you can completely ignore) so you can focus on your expert role. That said, for most people a mix is best; get a strong understanding of your main toolset (so you're highly skilled at your main role), but keep it topped up with knowledge of other areas; that way you're safer (e.g. if your technology goes out of favour), you can see quick wins (e.g. something which would take weeks to write in one language may be a couple of lines in another), and your broader knowledge allows you to gain insights which a narrow knowledge may not.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
I think I'm going to go with the 'wide' crowd. a) if job-hunting time comes up, you're not locked into a certain field. b) for most jobs, the really, really, deep knowledge isn't used very much. As others have said, on that rare occasion you need to get deeper, you certainly can. That being said, it's important to understand yourself, and what you like. I enjoy the middle and back-end more, making sure the data is persisted properly. Don't care too much about css, for example. I know enough to get by, and make stylistic changes, but it's neither something I enjoy nor am great at. So pretty shallow there. (Although I am learning more and more about manipulating the document via jquery, that's pretty fun.) I have a pretty deep knowledge on the SQL side, which I like better. I guess the point of this rambling is that being a full-stack developer is best long-term. Most organizations simply don't have the resources to have specialists; you're going to have to figure out each bit anyway.
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
-
There is so much in IT these days (so many languages, frameworks, architectures, platforms etc.) that it is unrealistic for a person to have a reasonable knowledge of all of it. That being the case, which is the best strategy to pursue: pick a narrow field and develop a deep knowledge about it or pick a set of fields and develop shallow (but non-zero) knowledge about them all?
Just a few observations.. larger companies/teams are skewed toward hiring narrow-deep specialists. Smaller companies need shallow-wide people, but never seem to realize it. They mostly seem to try to hire narrow-deep and end up settling for shallow-wide for a variety of reasons. I've yet to see any company actually looking for a shallow-wide person.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.