Early to bed, early to rise
A while back, Karl asked me to discuss "Early Adoption" here (or somewhere). I said I would, then let it bubble for a while, as I was conflicted. I decided to let my internal debate finally boil over here, though. I'll let you decide which feels better to you.
All products and companies go through essentially the same gloriously symmetrical and beautiful sigmoid cycle that living organisms and populations go through. There is a long period of limited growth, a "tipping point" leading to rapid growth, followed by a long plateau, and usually decline to nothing or another long period of limited growth. Deciding when you get into the cycle may be forced on you, or you may decide to enter (or not). However, as the great philosopher Neil Peart once wrote, "Even if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." and in this case, you are just remaining in another curve.
Pro-early:
I was once told by a wise oracle (OK, he was a Delphi instructor) that there were two groups of people who made "a lot of money" in this industry: those at the start of the curve (who became the experts), and those who were still in at the end of product's life cycle (because no one else wanted to work on it). In either scenario, you are dealing with being in a more select group. Those of us who were Web or Windows devs back in the late 80s (OK, not Web, but you know what I mean) or early 90s survived the long period of people asking us, "Why would you ever want a Word processor you had to use a mouse with?" to enjoy the glory days of Windows/Web development. The excitement of VB2/3 and VC++ 4.2, the pain of doing things the "Petzold way". We watched companies ignore Windows, and stubbornly stick to "the right thing". Later, we watched companies ignore the Web because, "Our customers know who we are and how to get ahold of us." We watched entirely new companies and industries flourish. Even better, we watched those companies because they watched us. I am incredibly lucky to have a rather visible podium, but think of the people you admire technically. They aren't likely to be recent converts to a technology. They were there at the beginning, learning by doing because there were no docs. Starting a new technology, such as .NET, while it is still new (and I think we're still looking for the inflection point) means that you have as good a chance as anyone to become a recognized expert. Come in later, and you'll be competing for attention with others. The early bird truely gets the rewards.
I used to work on a group here that was dedicated to "spreading the love" of new technologies. It was a group with a long, checkered and amazing heritage. To walk the same halls that Brockschmidt, St. John, heck, even Redmond have walked was an amazing experience. The companies I worked with on SOAP and .NET will be the ones to carry this industry to a new level. They've already experienced the power and joy that is .NET programming. Many told me and others that, "They wouldn't go back to the old way."
This has all been a long-winded way of saying, "Learn, explore and be in front of the pack. You may have some regrets, but it will come back in your favour if you stick with it."
Dangers of early:
Kent, you ignorant slut.
Pioneers are the ones that get the arrows in their backs. It's only those who come in later, after the problems have been solved that can actually do things in this industry. No one uses a 1.0 version of an application, you wait for version 3.0. That's when it really becomes useful. Also, this gives you the chance to see which products will succeed, and which will simply disappear. Then, once you get in, milk it as long as you can, and milk it some more. If you can't make anymore milk, then make hamburgers out of it. After all, think of the COBOL and PL/1 developers who made boat loads of $$$ in 1999. No, I'd rather let someone else go out there and learn the rough edges. Then, I can read their solutions on MSDN and elsewhere.
"I don't get paid to solve Beta problems, I get paid to write code."
So, whichever bucket you fit into, I hope this hasn't been a completely random discussion. I tend to fall more into the first bucket, but respect the strong need for the second group. My last boring anecdote was a discussion while I was still in University between two professors. The first professor chided the second for spending his career studying data that, "The initial work on it was done two decades ago. It's better to be on the leading edge." The second, older professor replied, "Yes, but someone has to fill in the huge holes that people like you leave in people's knowledge."
We now return to your regular Tuesday workload as I sit in a lovely planning offsite.
