Slashdot Mirror
Your Tech Skills Have a Two Year Half-Life
itwbennett writes "Eric Bloom, an IT leadership coach and former CIO, has answered that eternal question 'does working on old software hurt your professional marketability' with a somewhat surprising 'no.' But, Bloom adds, 'a techie's skill set from a marketability perspective has a two year half-life. That is to say, that the exact set of skills you have today will only be half as marketable two years from now.'"
Even COBOL refuses to die. C, C++ and it's variants are still everywhere (Objective C for Apple's iPhone App Store) decades later. Java has outlasted the fads of Ruby and Rails. HTML has been around ... well ... since the Internet. Javascript continues to be the #1 web scripting language.
So no, your skills don't have a half-life of "X" number of years.
Suppose I know some amount (X) of C now (Just out of college)
Will that be less valuable after having 2 years experience in the field?
No, it wont. He's talking about *certain* IT skills. I'm going to go out on a limb and bet he's referring to the kind of tools you learn in a simple ITT-Tech type certification program.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
One simple way to avoid that type of shit from entering the workplace, refuse to hire anyone that has a technical certificate of any kind along with those with a degree from the diploma mills such as ITT Tech and Conservative err Community Colleges. Community Colleges are a fancy way of saying trade school. Employers should only hire the truly educated and those are only from the major Universities.
I work in higher education, and not for a for-profit or a community college. Your belief that graduates from "the major Universities" are somehow better than those from other institutions, especially for something like application development, is hilarious to me.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
As a programmer, I can say that programming itself, that is, *how* to write code, in terms of methodology -- is a skill that will never leave you once you have acquired it (so long as you keep using it).
Almost any programmer worth their salt can learn a new language in a few weeks, if not days. Granted it may take more time to develop understanding of any idioms or warts the language may have, but you can learn that stuff on the fly, unless you're writing HA/mission critical code, in which case, there'd better be a review process, and it's reasonable to expect that someone on the team will be an expert in the technology being used.
So I'd say unless you've given up programming entirely and have moved on to a different career, your skills are still valuable, and will stay reasonably "fresh" even if you're writing code in a 30-year-old language (as the article says), as long as you actually think while you write code, and aren't just a copy/paste/munge wizard, not that there's anything wrong with that, for certain kinds of things.
This of course doesn't even consider the (imho) much more valuable part of being a software developer: being able to converse with non-technical people, in whatever human language you use, and then translate that into some sort of actionable programming work. That's often more than half the battle. Then of course there is testing, testing and testing.
The article isn't completely wrong, but (like much of the "IT industry") I think it missed the point of what skills are actually important to doing software development. Knowing how to use a specific bit of kit is pretty far down on the list, I think, for any reasonably competent programmer/technologist.
I treat anything with the word "marketability" in it with suspicion.