> I like Assembly. I respect people who have taken > the time to learn it.
I respect the ability to learn and use Assembler too... I'm glad the market for assembler is well satisfied, since I'm not particularly interested in working with it. :) For that matter I know some C++ and am not particularly interested in working with it routinely either. > Isn't it sort o like: > CF > Java > C > ASM > 110011 ? (sorta?) > Maybe now it's more of a CF > Java > machine lang? > I've heard tell of java compiling that did better > optimization than the a human... but it's funny > that you would use a language like Java and shy > away from generated code. He he he. [= Yep, it's ironic ain't it? :) > If it's really about the number of people doing > something, vs. skill/practicality, I guess the > best solution is taking out some competition, neh? > Get yourself a nice high-powered rifle and a cozy > spot near an internet cafe. :-P Now there's a practical man. :P > Seriously tho, you'd be kind of silly to base a > tech decision based solely on supply and demand. > That gets you into the whole "king of the hill" > (the t.v. show) mentality, "find a job no one else > wants do do". Although I certainly don't base my tech decisions solely on market influences I do think it's important to consider them. A person who knows some XML is certainly more valuable in today's programming market than they would have been 10 years ago (how old is XML anyway?). In another 10 years that skill may have continued to become more valuable or it may be less valuable due to increased supply of programmers who are proficient with XML. As a programmer you have value to the company you work for as long as the company sees a need for you to produce more software, and of course if the company decides that the technology you're using isn't valuable enough anymore, then you either have to find another company that values that technology or you have to learn something else. Just ask Jim Davis whos company (Met Life?) recently decided that ColdFusion wasn't valuable enough for them anymore (I disagree with their decision, but I digress) and decided to replace all their ColdFusion applications with Java applications written on top of IBM Websphere. If lots of companies collectively decide that your preferred technology isn't valuable enough anymore, then finding another company that continues to value it becomes more difficult because of the lack of demand. Difficulty finding jobs using that technology means having to compete with others who are willing to accept lower salaries. My preference is to learn more before I need that knowledge so that I'll be prepared. Now having said that, if it suddenly became improbable that I could find a job working with ColdFusion which would pay me well enough to survive with my expenses, then I would have to find some other technology to start working with (I don't think this is going to happen in the near future), and that decision wouldn't be based purely on supply and demand. My decision to stay with ColdFusion currently isn't based purely on supply and demand, if it were, then I would probably be working in all Java jobs. :) > Sure, you'll always have work, but > is that what the goal is? That's one of my goals. :) It's not my only goal. > There will always be work to be done, just like stuff > will always be built on other stuff. The real meat and > potatoes are in the "sum is more than the parts" type > deals. I don't think language or popularity have much > to do with it, sorta. I tend to agree. I think ColdFusion as a technology does a good job of encouraging synergies. > You want to further the world as a whole, > not have job security. I'd like both. :) > I love to kill off job security. Every chance I get > I'm like, "here's how you can do it yourself, easy > like". Some co-workers fear that mentality, and wish > I'd keep it to myself. Sorta keeping an artificial > "demand" going. There will always be legit "demands" > to "supply", so who cares about the status quo? Yeah, I don't think "artificial demand" really helps people in the long run. I personally hate doing repetitive work, which is why I spend so much time encapsulating functionality, so I can avoid much repetition. > Note my use of "security" as "work" - as I believe > "good people" automatically have the type of job > security that most people talk about, and somehow > conflate with "work". I'm not so convinced, although it's nice to think that would be the case. > I'd rather see something like BETA win over VHS, > than buy into the whole "economics of numbers" > mentality. I remember being told that the US passed a trade embargo that prevented Betamax from being sold in the US, which of course artificially deflates the demand for BETA. I never researched it tho. > Just a random injection. Please be aware that I > don't condone the personal attacks this thread > has generated. I'm trying to stick primarily with stating opinion and trying to be informative, and actually wouldn't have replied to this message (particularly since Judith already commented about the thread being inflamatory) except that I felt I could provide some positive feedback on a couple of your comments. s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:237318 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
