InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comSat, 25 May 2013 22:52:56 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxPersonally, I don't think it is possible to be a narrow-focussed specialist. To be great at one area you have to understand the things that impact that area. I'm an MI Analyst cum ETL Developer and my SQL and data viz skills are great, but I need to know about database management, physical storage, hardware and networks, information security, FE development, process improvement etc in order to be able to my job well. I believe that as the locus of your knowledge increases, the circumference of your ignorance also increases. The more you know, the more you realise you don't know that touches on what you do know. A good specialist is always trying to learn more in other areas that (in-)directly impact his/her area. A generalist puts the emphasis on knowing lots of things competently whereas a specialist puts emphasis on knowing one things expertly and lots of things passably. As to which one is best, I don't there's a universal Best as it's a matter of situation. I'd say that a generalist will build many things well but not necessarily excellently whereas a specialist will build a few things excellently. Which one you choose to do a task is about how well machined you need something to be - a non-critical, fairly simple system can be built by a generalist but a multi-million pound piece of software should be built by specialists.Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:57:29 GMTSteph Lockehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxGood editorial, but I, like so many others, just can't agree.I have been the 'Jack' for too long, in too many IT/Networking/Programming areas, multiple industries, scales of size, clients/employers on installations, maintains, takeaways, rebuilds, redesigns, from scratches, cobbled and patched to agree. For me what I have observed is that specialist and generalist can all get wrapped around the axle. Mostly when they get stuck on the simple concept of 'it has to be done exactly this way today'. When all the synapses are firing and everything is in alignment this works out. However, when thats not the case that developer/dba/tech/engineer/and the entire team end up spending the day and too much of the night forcing the issue. Because you Learned it should work THIS way, or It has worked this way EVERY time before, or They SAID. Just get it done, if the current solution is messy then commit to revisit as soon as possible and broadcast that its messy. Post the need/reminder to fix the messy solution in prominent places. It will get done.[i]For all the civility and form/function and showmanship, this is a results oriented species we belong too, and you must not forget it, because when you do you invariably become the recipient to noncivil, nonfunctional/random abuse and brutality.[/i]I think we can reasonably speculate that whomever was responsible for the recursive code that took 4 minutes to run, didn't test on a complex set of items, made up to follow the instruct to do it in the only tool of choice, and did not trace the execution. Any and all of these would have made it clear, just as you discovered, when you realized that it was hitting the database 100 times.I love specialists and theorists, they always succeed at describing some rarely used command, technique or concept. They often can display a simple workup of these as well. They can spot the differences between the lowercase i, l and 1 on a screen on the desk in the next cube or in the report scaled to fit and reduced to 4pt type. But they wear blinders when it comes to solutions outside of the form of a well specified request, and will often flounder and flail, and only alert that they are stuck late in the process after the tree of complexity branches has grown.Generalist get stuck because they have no allegiance to one or the other, they will just as easily underestimate rewrites when they get stuck, and will abandon a good path too soon in favor of one that ultimately is dead end. They often forget that just because they know how to do a bunch of stuff or can pick up quickly, they can't actually do it all ... at the same time. You risk bottlenecks when too much resides with one Generalist. Imagination, creativity, and simple tools to modern problems - thats what the generalist bring. Sometimes messy, because they are lazy, but they can get it done. Its just your job to review their crap, as another poster said: make peer review of all code a part of the process. Thanks for encouraging me respond.my 20cents.Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:48:51 GMTSean Josiah-454849http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Sean Lange (8/30/2011)[/b][hr]I have known plenty of "dedicated sql specialists" who couldn't write decent sql to save their lives and developers who could write some of the most elegant and efficient sql. I have also known some developers that can't even spell sql. It doesn't matter what somebody's job title or their current position is. It all comes down to the ability of the individual. Just because somebody is a "specialist" it does not provide any actual indication of their ability.[/quote]Interestingly enough - to me a "SQL specialist" is an oxymoron, since you'd have to master multiple major specialties, making you (come on, say it with me) a [b]generalist[/b]. Now - if you were to tell me you were a specialist in writing efficient queries or designing scalable data structures, NOW you're a specialist. Otherwise, you're likely to be just as much of a generalist as the others.I've often been tagged as a "generalist" because I happen to navigate in an area that crosses the boundaries between data and application (so yes - I used to be described as a developer, but I know a fair amount about writing data and persistence layers that don't bring the house down when you lean on them, actually have relational integrity, etc...). I'd have to say, just because every skill you have acquired doesn't start or end with "SQL" doesn't necessarily make you any more or less of a specialist (although there might not be a dandy premade title to state what you are a specialist in).(sorry for the repost if you're getting this, my post somehow jumped threads?)Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:28:07 GMTMatt Miller (#4)http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Rod at work (8/30/2011)[/b][hr]. . . No one has had any pay increase in 4 years. And because our benefits keep [getting] raised, we're all taking less home then we did 4 years ago.[/quote]I am afraid you are not the only one, Rod - results of optimistic surveys notwithstanding.Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:57:09 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]tshw (8/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]Rod at work (8/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]tshw (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]Interesting article... however, like many people here, I disagree with the comparison of generalist vs specialist... but favor the comparison of expert vs amateur.[/quote]I agree with you, too, tshw. So, you're making over 6-figure annual salary? So, where is it you work? ...[/quote]Rod,100K+ is not much in high cost of living area... trick is getting that in a mid-to-low cost of living area.:/Also, it's easy to get a free 5% increase... haven't you seen the survey out? On the average, people who are difficult to work with make 5% more than normal workers. :([/quote]Not where I work. No one has had any pay increase in 4 years. And because our benefits keep raised, we're all taking less home then we did 4 years ago.Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:39:04 GMTRod at workhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxAs a Software Developer turned DBA and now wearing both hats in a Fortune 500 company, I agree that database coding should be done by DBA's and application development left to the software developers.However, I have worked on projects where DBA's were perhaps overwhelmed or down right uncooperative with developers.Whatever the reason, I often had to resort to inefficient practices like those you discovered just to make the deadline.Knowing the whole time that it could be so much better through the use of stored procedures and views.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:40:41 GMTsteven.tomlinsonhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxThis is a "good programmer" / "bad programmer" problem rather than a generalist / specialist issue. Companies need both specialists and generalists, with the balance depending on what they do.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:50:55 GMTaureolinhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxMike, Your article brings up an important topic. I agree with what many have already replied to you on this subject, so I won't repeat it. The one thing would add, though, is that I do not believe a specialist is not necessarily better than a generalist, or vise versa. Nor is there a universal standard to the proper mix of generalist and specialist an organization should have. It is the business problem or task you are trying to solve that will determine whether or not to use a generalist, specialist, or a mixed team. [quote]organizations are being foolish by looking for developers who can do everything[/quote]This is a broad claim that may be true for your organization, but perhaps not for others. I believe suggesting an organization use specialists or generalist without understanding the specific needs of the project, or the needs of the company is putting the cart before the horse.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:20:33 GMTJon Russellhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Rod at work (8/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]tshw (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]Interesting article... however, like many people here, I disagree with the comparison of generalist vs specialist... but favor the comparison of expert vs amateur.[/quote]I agree with you, too, tshw. So, you're making over 6-figure annual salary? So, where is it you work? ...[/quote]Rod,100K+ is not much in high cost of living area... trick is getting that in a mid-to-low cost of living area.:/Also, it's easy to get a free 5% increase... haven't you seen the survey out? On the average, people who are difficult to work with make 5% more than normal workers. :(Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:16:21 GMTtshwhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Rod at work (8/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]Revenant (8/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]jn_gray (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]I think that all developers start out as specialists and over time become generalists unless they decide to make a concerted effort to remain a specialist. . . .[/quote]Right on. Note that if you want to be a team lead, you have to be a generalist. It takes lots of continuous learning, most often on your time.[/quote]Totally agree with you, Revenant.[/quote]In this instance, I must disagree. It may have to do with what I *percieve* to be a generalist though.I can reasonably read ASP, C++ (and some sharp), VB coding, etc. I understand it enough to know when I'm getting snookered by other staff. I cannot honestly say I could actually write more then the basics of it effectively though. In this way, I don't consider myself a generalist, because I am a specialist for databasing, and SQL Server in particular. I can, however, lead a team of technical people with enough basic knowledge to know what needs to be done where, even if I can't do it myself.To me, the analogy of the diagnostician (think your personal doctor) and knowing what specialist needs to deal with the issue to send you to is very relevant when it comes to technical managers. Hi-end technical generalists are not necessary to lead a technical team well, but some basic knowledge across the field will help tremendously.A high-end generalist, to me, is someone with enough ability to describe to me why the mechanics of filtered indexing vs. materialized views and their pros and cons, while then having a discussion later with another coder as to why a particular library of code has memory leaks, and how to deal with them. If you can't do this, you're not 'high-end' in either field, you're generic. And generic is good enough for most things these days.I don't need a heart surgeon to cure my cold, my fungus issue, or my earache. However, if my heart is suddenly not working properly, I sure as heck don't want to be down at the corner office. It's about the actual needs of the company, not if the code's pretty.The first rule of software: "Does the end user think it works?" Do you have enough end users (or data, or special UI requirements) to consider a specialist to be important to a particular application of it?Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:02:13 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]tshw (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]Interesting article... however, like many people here, I disagree with the comparison of generalist vs specialist... but favor the comparison of expert vs amateur.I've always prided myself on being a generalist. And if you think being a generalist = non-expert =&gt; lower pay, think again. I've been over six-figure annual salary since 23 years-old working for Fortune 50 to SMBs. With a solid computer science background, an "expert generalist" understands (or at least quickly come up-to-speed with) the pros/cons of each technology, language, programming model, yada yada... An expert generalist can dive into the details of any task at hand and come up with an efficient solution. At least that has been my experience, your mileage may vary...Also, you can read all the books in the world and gain more knowledge, but there's one thing you can't improve on, no matter how much time or effort: intelligence. In a team, you need different types of smarts: knowledge and intelligence (or both if you are lucky).[/quote]I agree with you, too, tshw. So, you're making over 6-figure annual salary? So, where is it you work? ...Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:29:12 GMTRod at workhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (8/29/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]jn_gray (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]I think that all developers start out as specialists and over time become generalists unless they decide to make a concerted effort to remain a specialist. . . .[/quote]Right on. Note that if you want to be a team lead, you have to be a generalist. It takes lots of continuous learning, most often on your time.[/quote]Totally agree with you, Revenant.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:26:37 GMTRod at workhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxFor SQL Server, books by Itzik Ben-Gan work quite well.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:24:12 GMTMikeAngelastro-571287http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxInteresting article... however, like many people here, I disagree with the comparison of generalist vs specialist... but favor the comparison of expert vs amateur.I've always prided myself on being a generalist. And if you think being a generalist = non-expert =&gt; lower pay, think again. I've been over six-figure annual salary since 23 years-old working for Fortune 50 to SMBs. With a solid computer science background, an "expert generalist" understands (or at least quickly come up-to-speed with) the pros/cons of each technology, language, programming model, yada yada... An expert generalist can dive into the details of any task at hand and come up with an efficient solution. At least that has been my experience, your mileage may vary...Also, you can read all the books in the world and gain more knowledge, but there's one thing you can't improve on, no matter how much time or effort: intelligence. In a team, you need different types of smarts: knowledge and intelligence (or both if you are lucky).Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:42:41 GMTtshwhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxIn general, I agree with the above posters.Note that a "generalist" is merely someone with more than one specialty and/or sub-specialty; they may, but are unlikely to, have reasonable knowledge of whatever you need as well as LISP, Prolog, ADA, MicroVAX administration, iSCSI over WAN-based 10Gbps Ethernet, and Token Ring.Really good "generalists" with sub-specialties in a given field are often better than low to mid range "specialists" in that field.The above problem was a result of some developers not understanding set based coding; that has nothing to do with "generalist" vs specialist.Note that in interaction issues in particular, one good generalist with the relevant sub-specialties can act as a catalyst to solve problems far faster and cheaper than merely having five or six specialists in a conference room (imagine a DB issue that's showing in the DB, but goes through the OS, the HBA firmware, the fiber network, the WAN, the SAN, the SAN replication, and the spindle configuration at the other end). Sometimes they can even dig in and solve the problem themselves.Sometimes it's as easy as "Oh, wait; that's not a code issue, that's an Active Directory permissions issue when you're running as a regular user". Sometimes it's not.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:37:03 GMTNadrekhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jn_gray (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]I think that all developers start out as specialists and over time become generalists unless they decide to make a concerted effort to remain a specialist. . . .[/quote]Right on. Note that if you want to be a team lead, you have to be a generalist. It takes lots of continuous learning, most often on your time.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:11:20 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxI think that all developers start out as specialists and over time become generalists unless they decide to make a concerted effort to remain a specialist. How many DBAs have had multiple comical instances to report over beers with other DBAs about some idiotic process or SQL code written by a developer because they couldn't be bothered to learn anything about a database (the comic Raw Materials comes to mind here)?I also think that if you're a specialist, and all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A company needs both specialists and generalists, or they are losing out on the big picture. Projects can't be siloed, and good communication can avoid this, but how many projects really run that way?Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:30 GMTjn_grayhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxOh, good article, Mike. Well, here I am, one of those "jack of all trades, master of none" type of developers. In a real sense, though, I prefer this. One of the things I've like about my position, and probably one of the reasons why I've stayed here so long, is that I get to do a lot of different things. Database development (really T-SQL development, in particular stored procs, views and triggers), middle-tier development (in the past that was COM+ components and now its WCF), and front-end development (in the past that was VB6, and now its ASP.NET and WPF/Silverlight). However, looking at it from the other side (management), they are simply unwilling to pay for more developers, period. We won't hire specialists, because we cannot afford the overhead. Does it take me, and my other co-worker longer to do anything? Of course; but that isn't going to change.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:14:25 GMTRod at workhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxMike, much thanks for a thought-provoking editorial!Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:07:51 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GilaMonster (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]. . . Edit: oh and a few hundred hours of practice too.[/quote]Make that a few thousand -- planning year is 1,500 hours and it takes several years...Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:06:41 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxThere are two sides to this debate. First, should I just be a DBA or should I also learn the other technologies as well and become a generalists or just specialize as a DBA. Second, given that I am a DBA am I already a generalists DBA or am I specialized DBA, i.e. Production DBA, Development DBA, BI Architect. I would contended that the longer you work as a DBA the more general you become simply because you have touched many different types of technologies over the years. Also, you need to generally be aware of the other technologies in order to communicate with developers and managers.By definition, a Data Architect is a highly specialized generalist. You had better be a specialist in SQL Server, but a generalist in other RDBMS. You also need to have a high level understanding of current front end development tools. In order to converse with other members of the team, I need to know current Server and Storage Technology. I should be able understand nightly enterprise scheduling and the fact that my application may not be they only one or even the most important platform for a Data Center to care about. I need to understand the business of the company and how to read financial reports and understand C-Level needs and wants.… On Second thought, maybe I should just specialize in SQL Servers and only talk to computers … or better yet, mop some floors.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:51:26 GMTmichael.french 172http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]krowley (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]I am working on moving from being a generalist to being a specialist in SQL Server and keep looking for the best course of study to take me there. If there was a simple well laid out path, even one that was 2000 pages long, this would be very helpful for me and others like me. [/quote]2000's a bit on the low side. Maybe 20000...[url]http://www.sqlskills.com/T_MCMVideos.asp[/url][url]http://www.sqlskills.com/MCM.asp[/url]40+ hours of video and a long list of blogs and books (and that's just the admin side)Edit: oh and a few hundred hours of practice too.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:36:52 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxI pretty much avoid recursion when I write programs. I like to see iterative code as an explicit control structure. I've always thought that this was just a personal preference so I'm surprised to read that there are business cases that "require" recursion as a programming solution. Maybe a programming language requires it (such as those languages implementing functional programming), but a business case?Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:33:48 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxThere's a need for both kinds of professionals. Don't ask a family doctor to perform surgery, but likewise don't ask a surgeon to treat an ear infection. Your argument has a lot of merit, though. Too many companies rely on generalists exclusively. In my opinion, an ideal "generalist" should be able to tell his/her boss when a subject matter expert is needed, at least on a consulting basis, while the rest of the time doing whatever it is the business needs the other 95% of the time.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:13:36 GMTscH4MMERhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxI think that both generalists and specialists are useful. I have found that event the most diverse generalist is a specialist in at least 1 category. I am this person, my specialty is in database (design/development) and OO client server coding. I can and have programmed in a plethora of languages also. When my company finds out I can do the other stuff they use me to do these tasks also in addition to DB stuff. I always refer my coding to review to a specialist until I have a handle on the api, and I often differ to the specialist on how to do something in the platform that they are good in. I have also found that some specialists are not worth their credentials in all of this. Some people are just better developers than other no matter how specialized their training and experience are. Finally, I prefer people with diverse experience to have on my team as long as they have some specialities. The generalists bring a broader view of the whole picture to the table and the specialists bring a more microscopic view in many cases. CASE Example:Working with a whole bunch of JAVA developers on a project and part of the process was scrubbing data. Since they were all specialists in JAVA they solved the problem in JAVA. When I came along to do some JAVA with them I asked why are you doing this scrubbing in JAVA? I took them an insane amount of time to process this scrub. In a standard SQL proceedure I could scrub the data in about 1/10 the time. They wanted to avoid babel code as much as possible, and I totally understand why they wanted to do that. This type of JAVA only thinking is what eventually sunk the project after 1 year.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:11:29 GMTemkopphttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxThank you for your article. I would like to weigh in on the generalist vs. specialist argument. One point that I think is missed in your article is that, in my experience, specialist will sometimes neglect to consider other tools and approaches that are outside of their area of expertise. In your example it is true that a sql specialist would have considered the store procedures as a solution and probably have been able to develop the CTE much more quickly. However, if it had been a VB specialist, they probably would not have even considered the posibilities of using either option. Generalist are more willing to consider other options and more willing to use a tool that they may not be profient in. That is why generalist are valuable to organizations.Personally I would prefer to see a team mixed of generalist and specialist on large development projects. That way you can balance the expertise of the people that know their tools intimately, with those people that may not know the tools as deeply, but may bring since balance to the team. That is probably a luxury that most organziations seldom have.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:07:23 GMTbcox 9771http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspx[quote][b]krowley (8/29/2011)[/b][hr]Where do your page counts come from? Are there a set of books you have that you pulled these from, or are these from some online documentation?I am working on moving from being a generalist to being a specialist in SQL Server and keep looking for the best course of study to take me there. If there was a simple well laid out path, even one that was 2000 pages long, this would be very helpful for me and others like me. Instead what I often get in conflicting information on where to even start with the most common thread of an answer being "it depends" :-) which I understand to be correct but it still not very helpful.[/quote]Don't believe there is a series of books/courses that when followed, makes you a good specialist. They will however help with the groundwork and teach you the concepts used in the field. In other words, there exists no quick fix...not to us humans at least. Anyone can read a series of books and most can pass tests after some practice, but applying the gained information effectively requires more and not all of the skill set is technical. Sometimes it is more a matter of asking the right questions at the right time to the right people!Some ideas to help you progress faster:* Practice a lot, try different solutions to problems and compare these properly (on very large volumes of data);* Find a mentor that can help you out when you find yourself blocked on a problem;* Forums are a great source of problems, ideas and solutions (always compare them to your own);And once you get a job, make sure you are NOT the master on the subject right away. Because once you are and you get a lot of work to do, you will not have a lot of time analyzing various solutions anymore. It is better if you can learn on the job from someone already more experienced IMHO.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:02:25 GMTpeter-757102http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxI don't think reading any number of pages can give you expertise in programming. Doing is where you get the expertise and since you don't get expertise from doing only doing backups and restores you can't put a time frame on how long you need to work with SQL to be considered a specialist. That is touched on in the editorial but I don't think it was stressed enough.Generalists still have a very important place in being able to put all the pieces together. I've worked with some developers that could put their hand to pretty much anything. They were key to the company because they could take a big view of the application and weigh in on both DB and compiled code. They also had years and years of experience so it was something that they had gained over time. It certainly takes longer to become a good generalist but the people that do it deserve a lot of respect.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:00:06 GMTcfradenburghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxWhere do your page counts come from? Are there a set of books you have that you pulled these from, or are these from some online documentation?I am working on moving from being a generalist to being a specialist in SQL Server and keep looking for the best course of study to take me there. If there was a simple well laid out path, even one that was 2000 pages long, this would be very helpful for me and others like me. Instead what I often get in conflicting information on where to even start with the most common thread of an answer being "it depends" :-) which I understand to be correct but it still not very helpful.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:30:44 GMTkrowleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxAn interesting editorial for sure, but as I read it I was struck that the bigger question in what you are describing may be that this project involved a poorly designed, patched together application more than it involved Specialists versus Generalists.When I was a much younger developer, one of the best pieces of advice I ever recieved was very simple: "KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid". Now at the tail end of my career I would say that most of the software disasters I have seen have come from two things: Developers running amock trying to be too fancy or complex, and a complete lack of commenting in code.No two other things combine to make an apocalypse-in-waiting than some developer doing work years ago and trying to nurture job security by making code overly complex, and ensuring that there is no commenting for a future developer to know what they were thinking.As much as I agree that often Specialists can be more helpful than Generalists, if we are talking about what is in fact a software mess, the question becomes somewhat moot.This is why today, every week, we do code reviews. Everyone gets together and reviews each other's code. And if you work for me and dont comment your code, you wont be working for me for very long. Software is an asset, and an investment. I have no patience for people who think following some theoretical methodology protects that asset. Eyeballs are what protects the asset - look at the code and do so with an eye toward someone someday having to tinker the code.Concerns about Specialists versus Generalists come second - because if the software is well, a piece of crap, it really doesnt matter who is going to work on it - its already a disaster.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:36:35 GMTblandryhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxThe article states this following opinion:[quote]This experience led me to the notion that organizations are being foolish by looking for developers who can do everything. The knowledge required to create major applications is too great. Companies end up getting jacks of all trades and masters of none, and the resulting applications are not all that great. [/quote]I very much disagree that yours is a case of being a [b]generalist[/b] versus being a [b]specialist[/b] and that being a generalist implies you have no deep knowledge in any field you operate in. Your statement probably only has [b]some[/b] merit to people that have no more than a few years of development experience.Take someone that has tens of years worth of generic experience (has done it all). This person might in fact have quite deep knowledge in the fields you would dismiss him from as not being a specialist. Likewise you assume a specialist has deeper knowledge in his field then someone that did not specialize but has more experience. Which in my view would be another erroneous assumption.You try to classify people based on an aspect that says little about their capability to perform a task. It reminds me of the view non developers and academics had (and maybe some still do) of software development where you have a analyst, …. , programmer, …. , and finally a coder. While in fact [b]no one[/b] in the world just code with fully laid out diagrams as input!Now I can argue why a company will want to hire generalists if their qualities and experience cover what is needed. Quite simple they will be more flexible and adaptable and more likely to come with or adopt suggestions that improve the end result. Also hiring is quite a time consuming business and getting a specialist on the payroll is taking a risk, the smaller the company the higher that risk is.Don’t get me wrong, there are tasks where a deep specific knowledge is required and any experienced generalist will support hiring an [b]experienced[/b] specialist in those situations (even if only to learn from). I like to close by saying that for smaller companies, hiring specialists is risky and costly and that for larger companies is best to have generalists too, supported by a few [b]experienced[/b] specialists in various areas. That way you have all the knowledge in-house and you work with people that can assimilate that knowledge and put it to good use. A good blend will improve your workforce over time. The same is true for mixing exeprienced people with less experienced people, you got to blend to be cost effective and keep everyone motivated and intersted in their job!Mon, 29 Aug 2011 03:34:26 GMTpeter-757102http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxGood Article! I have also experienced the same thing.Coding in stored procedure should be encouraged among developers who are handling both front end and back end.Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:35:52 GMTsuneesudhyihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1166765-263-1.aspxComments posted to this topic are about the item [B]<A HREF="/articles/Editorial/75503/">Specialists or Generalists: Who are best as Developers?</A>[/B]Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:21:30 GMTMikeAngelastro-571287