The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.
I'd agree if its most other jobs but I thought devs were one job where appearance doesn't matter as much?
[deleted]
Short fat engineers are undervalued
71–80 of 269 posts
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#72Is it really true? A lot of companies are focusing on hiring "short fat" engineers. Especially companies having "dev ops" engineering model, where engineers must be able to work on all stages of the product lifecycle - from design, development, testing, to deployment and operations.
"Full stack" (for whatever definition) is valued because it cuts down on coordination costs, but you may run into limits of what you can expect one person to know. Interestingly, as I've had to hire some "skinny" specialists, my Kanban board has gotten wider to coordinate between them.
Jquery is horrible for many reasons.
But it made it easy to be a full stack developer.
Things are far more challenging these days.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#73The argument of specialist vs generalist is futile. They simple fit in distinct parts of the journey and evolution of a software product. Generalists are highly valuable for many types of orgs and projects especially nascent projects. But sometimes you need the precise output of a specialist to achieve something. If my business has a product that is highly dependent of let's say OpenGL, then an OpenGL specialist will…
> If you are a generalist and you feel undervalued, you're likely in the wrong project or too involved in phases of a project where your contribution can't move the needle significantly anymore.
Generalists could also be the people in the project who get things done: they may have sufficient domain knowledge to implement the recommendations of a specialist. In poorly-managed or understaffed teams, a generalist might feel a bit frustrated because they're a go-to for any Job That Needs Doing Right Now, even if it falls outside of the field of their deepest experience.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#74People who have broad interests with no depth of knowledge have not identified (for themselves) where their value lies. I would imagine that this type of engineer needs to be carefully managed to stay on tasks that add business-value. As such, it's not unfair that they are seen as juniors. They are juniors.
People whose value lies in coordination often need to dabble in multiple fields. Think of a technical artist in a game company.
I would count coordination here as a deep technical skill, which requires a depth of study and/or experience. You are selling your coordination skills.
It's the stick of the T.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#75When I was younger I used to say that I was a jack of all trades, master of none. Many years later I feel like a jack of all trades, master of many. I no longer fit any of the profiles presented here.
That's called being old. Generally considered out of date, unable to learn new stuff :-)
Yet, always held a job, so far never part of a layoff, still pulling my weight. If you are not constantly learning then you are falling behind. The biggest differences from my younger days are more distractions in my personal life (family), and I make better decisions than I once did.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#76When I was younger I used to say that I was a jack of all trades, master of none. Many years later I feel like a jack of all trades, master of many. I no longer fit any of the profiles presented here.
I too have a broken comb profile. Every now an then I get to have some fun and add or extend a few teeth. But for the most part the skills let me work through most tangles pretty well.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#77How about "tall and fat" (square)? I'd consider myself fairly expert in C and C++, SQL, Windows programming, UNIX/Linux in general, Delphi and a few other technologies, in that quite a few people have paid me for writing important applications using them, teaching them and writing about them.
Then, according to this dumb pop psych thing, you are autistic and not a good fit for the job market.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#78A possible problem with ‘wisdom’ in this sense is that it doesn’t always stack well, whereas deep knowledge usually does.
A wise generalist manager deftly guiding the skills of a bunch of deep specialists probably makes for a great team, and a team that can be expanded without much friction. A team with too many ‘wise’ people (or people who perceive themselves that way) might just waste all day arguing.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#79When I was younger I used to say that I was a jack of all trades, master of none. Many years later I feel like a jack of all trades, master of many. I no longer fit any of the profiles presented here.
That's called being old. Generally considered out of date, unable to learn new stuff :-)
It depends, if your "master of many" list is all old technologies, or all new technologies.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#80The point that "on a long enough time line, wisdom is always more valuable than knowledge" is pretty irrelevant to tech companies. They hire engineers to get stuff done quickly - not slowly gather "wisdom". The average tenure at a tech company continues to be a few years. Also, I've noticed that entry-to-mid level jobs are great for "short and fat" engineers, but once you start aiming for senior (or higher) level IC…
Gotta laugh at the HN definition of "failure". Plenty of "short and fat" jobs provide a good career. Not everyone wants or needs anything else.