|
|
|
|
|
by krasicki
3447 days ago
|
|
To give you some context, I'll answer this as a [largely] life-long consultant. As such, I don't chase technology, I anticipate the trajectory of job growth. I want the project that I decide to work on next to propel me to a project that will likewise broaden and deepen the experience and skillset I have to offer. <p>I also try not to get trapped into working for clients whose only interest in my experience is to recreate one of the last things I did. The easiest way to kill your value is to do the same thing over and over - even twice is too much. It's true technology progresses in dog years. When you are working you are not learning outside that bubble. When you are between assignments you absolutely must treat that time as a sabbatical to learn something/anything new. By broadening your skillset through selective project engagement, you are better off than Skippy who has worked on the same application with great job security for 5 years - Skippy will not be someone you will re-encounter 10 years from now unless you are buying a used car and they happen to be the sales person. The industry is self-selective this way. The complacent "I got mine" mentality is toxic to longevity in the industry. Let me also dispell the meme that sticking to a specialty is a desirable thing. The fact of the matter is that the ocean of legacy code grows exponentially and there is always a need for someone who knows a legacy language or technology. this kind of career trajectory is as desirable as cleaning out septic tanks. There's job security to be had and you'll hear plenty of "Ho, ho, ho - I don't need no stinkin' new fangled whatever" to be indispensible. My advice is not to be that guy/gal. It is a much harder and a much richer experience to navigate a career in the flow of technology than to get myopically paralyzed by a desire to featherbed where you are today.
But your question is "how" to keep up. IMO, the answer is to skim lots of material and only dive in at the last most relevant moment. The generalist is far more qualified that the specialist these days because most companies cannot afford a prima donna - they need people who can perform many jobs and serve many needs. |
|