As I look back at my career, I wonder if I should have chosen to be an expert in a specific technology or a generalist who knows a bit of everything.
That is indeed the question.
Starting with Visual Basic (4,5,6) I programmed applications that connected to Oracle and had reports in Crystal Reports.
Then switched to classic ASP to Oracle to Access.
Then to Actuate Reports to Oracle and Vantive to Oracle.
Then to .net to SQL-Server.
Then to Java to Mainframe and Crystal Reports / Business Objects to Oracle.
Then to SSRS to SQL-Server.
Not exactly a straight line of technology.
So that has provided a good career, crossing technologies and industries.
However, I see some programmers who have specialized in 15 years of Oracle or 8 years of .net or whatever.
They would be considered experts in the specific field.
So once again, should I have taken a more traditional approach to career and learned one or two products really well instead of across the board?
I don't know. It's a toss up I suppose.
I don't have any statistical data to prove one way or the other.
Although I've been in Business Intelligence my entire career, I've seen new programmers pass me with the latest push of Microsoft BI because the company's I worked for were behind the times.
I suppose I could catch up in a hurry if need be.
I like to think of it as a utility baseball player who can play any position on the team vs. a starting pitcher who plays ever 3rd game in the rotation.
Both serve a purpose.
Just a preference I suppose.
I signed up for the Hortonworks Certified Associate exam last Thursday. Figured if I sign up, I'd have to take the test. And if I tak...
Saw a post today on Twitter, " Microsoft releases CNTK, its open source deep learning toolkit, on GitHub " This is big news. Be...
It seems like open source applications are the mainstream today. So many new products delivered through Aache foundation. Some do this. S...