An eye opener honestly, I have to admit that I constantly thought that generalist path is more attractive, specially for non-tech companies, but I might need to change the approach after reading this.
Based on my experience the generalist path works out well when startups have enough capital to make a slightly risky hire. In the current job market, specialists in a specific language or framework is more sought after so that the hiring is risk free.
It really depends on who(or what) is screening your resume. If it's someone with several years of techinical experience, they might consider the resume based on your generalist work. If it's a junior engineer or someone on HR side, they would just reject purely based on keywords on the resume.
I was once rejected for a python role because the last time I pushed code in python to production was 2 years ago.
Inexperienced developers but also inexperienced PMs have become extremely biased against generalists, due to assumptions and tendency to box others. This is a recent phenomena, it didn't used to be like this. A CTO, engineering director or senior knows better.
Fixing HR is easy, though: just explain it to them what a generalist is and the advantages, and they'll trust you.
It really depends on who(or what) is screening your resume. If it's someone with several years of techinical experience, they might consider the resume based on your generalist work. If it's a junior engineer or someone on HR side, they would just reject purely based on keywords on the resume.
I was once rejected for a python role because the last time I pushed code in python to production was 2 years ago.