| > Not that we shouldn't use modern tools, but having a generation of developers unable to do anything outside their chosen layer of abstraction is a sad state of affairs. Funnily enough my day job is writing software for structural engineers (and I am a licensed engineer). Your comments are absolutely on point. One of the most important discussions I have with senior engineers is "how will we train tomorrow’s engineers, now that the computer does so much work?" 40 years ago, the junior engineers were the calculators, using methods like moment distribution, portal frame, etc… today the computer does the calculation using the finite element method. Engineers coming straight out of school are plunged right into higher level work right away - the type of work that junior engineers a couple of generations ago might not have seen for 5-10 years. My first career development discussion with a senior engineer was "Just work for 10-15 years, then you'll know what you need to be a good engineer." I have discussed this under the theme of Generation Gap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqz2AeqkaQ&t=147s, 2:27 - 8:58), and have a similar conclusion to you: what at first appears as a different generational approaches are actually different facets of a well-rounded, senior technical skill set. Maybe the kids are just learning things in a different order than we did? Pat Gelsinger et al's discussion of the demise of the tall, thin designer is another interesting perspective (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Avinoam-Kolodny/publica...) |