<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Steve Sanderson</title>
	<link>http://stevesanderson.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>Comment on FiveRuns by People Over Process &#187; links for 2008-03-13</title>
		<link>http://stevesanderson.com/2008/03/01/fiveruns/#comment-1213</link>
		<author>People Over Process &#187; links for 2008-03-13</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://stevesanderson.com/2008/03/01/fiveruns/#comment-1213</guid>
		<description>[...] Steve Sanderson :: FiveRuns The new VP of Development and Technology at RedMonk client FiveRuns. (tags: execs redmonkclients fiveruns) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Steve Sanderson :: FiveRuns The new VP of Development and Technology at RedMonk client FiveRuns. (tags: execs redmonkclients fiveruns) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Specialists and generalists by Esteban Vargas</title>
		<link>http://stevesanderson.com/2004/12/09/specialists-and-generalists/#comment-899</link>
		<author>Esteban Vargas</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:44:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://stevesanderson.com/2004/12/09/specialists-and-generalists/#comment-899</guid>
		<description>Interesting proposition...  I've grown closer to the idea of a generalist myself; however, you have taken the concept way WAY further than me :P

For a while now I've "known" (if one can really do such thing) that the future in Technology lies not in being the all knowing all seeing God of X (where X is pick one...), but in being able to do well in A-Z.

This was reinforced to me when I heard of an MD major that actually studies "everything" and graduates generalists as opposed to neurologists, podiatrists, etc.  So I thought, why not a generalist for CS (but not someone with an undergraduate skill set but in fact someone with a graduate degree in the common technology language out there).  If you think about it, CS has many parallelisms with MD, so if they can do it, why can’t we?

But going from a generalist in one discipline (which itself is complex enough) to a multidisciplinary generalist is a bold (emphasize understatement here) step.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting proposition&#8230;  I&#8217;ve grown closer to the idea of a generalist myself; however, you have taken the concept way WAY further than me <img src='http://stevesanderson.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>For a while now I&#8217;ve &#8220;known&#8221; (if one can really do such thing) that the future in Technology lies not in being the all knowing all seeing God of X (where X is pick one&#8230;), but in being able to do well in A-Z.</p>
<p>This was reinforced to me when I heard of an MD major that actually studies &#8220;everything&#8221; and graduates generalists as opposed to neurologists, podiatrists, etc.  So I thought, why not a generalist for CS (but not someone with an undergraduate skill set but in fact someone with a graduate degree in the common technology language out there).  If you think about it, CS has many parallelisms with MD, so if they can do it, why can’t we?</p>
<p>But going from a generalist in one discipline (which itself is complex enough) to a multidisciplinary generalist is a bold (emphasize understatement here) step.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Down To The Desktop Or Up Into The Clouds by Aurelien</title>
		<link>http://stevesanderson.com/2007/08/01/down-or-up-into-the-clouds/#comment-742</link>
		<author>Aurelien</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://stevesanderson.com/2007/08/01/down-or-up-into-the-clouds/#comment-742</guid>
		<description>Hi!

I'm one of the author of Contactizer Pro. What would really help us would be to explain why Contactizer did not make it.
What exactly is the "right set of features"?

Thanks for your comment</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m one of the author of Contactizer Pro. What would really help us would be to explain why Contactizer did not make it.<br />
What exactly is the &#8220;right set of features&#8221;?</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
