>>> The generalist will be at a disadvantage when faced with a task >>> that pushes state of the art for a specific field. > Absolutely not. The generalist has a huge advantage, because at the > cutting edge there is no "specific field", only a problem to be > solved. To truly push the state of the art almost always requires > importing ideas from outside any "specific field", because the > specialists have mastered *those*, and that's what defines the "state > of the art".
But there is a way in which the generalist will be at a disadvantage, too: the generalist will not be familiar with the detailed tools available to the specialist. For example, if I (mostly a generalist) were to want to write data-blind multiplication code (something that is valuable for cryptography) based on Fourier transforms but didn't know anything about FFTs, I would be at a substantial disadvantage. If I weren't familiar with even the concept of a Fourier transform, I would be at a pretty much catastrophic disadvantage. (As it is, I'm at a mild disadvantage bceause I don't know FFTs in detail, but only a mild one because I know they exist, have a vague knowledge of them, and know how to find details when I care.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user