A few weeks ago I accidentally sparked, via this tweet, an entertaining debate about what it takes to be called a developer. This led to my post "Do you even develop, bro?", where I explained my view on when it might be appropriate. (Spoiler: It's a broad term.) But my friend Brendan Whitsitt of Imprint Development has just published an even better post on the topic. It's called "Developer vs. Dirt-Flipper" and you should give it a read.

In it, he says this:

So if we tried to sketch a Platonic ideal for what a developer is, we might say that the ideal developer would have a solid understanding of, and experience in, all phases of development, including construction. This person will have a holistic perspective that attempts to optimize across all phases of a project rather than just one part.

This doesn't relate directly to the debate of who should be called a developer, but I think it's an insightful comment. Developers have very specific skillsets, but they also tend to be generalists. Our job is to stitch together lots of different disciplines and elements to ultimately produce a space that people can live, work, play, and/or do other things inside. The more you know about the entire process, the better you can be at any one part.

I even think this transcends just the development process. The more you know and understand about cities, market trends, human behavior and countless other things, the more thoughtful you can be about formulating new developments. It's never ending and it makes for an interesting line of work. But I do think this raises the question of: When is it valuable to specialize?

Bond — which is a San Francisco-based VC firm with a cool website — just published this 340-page report on Artificial Intelligence. One of the authors of the report is Mary Meeker. She has been called the "Queen of the Internet" thanks to a 20-year run of presentations about the state of the internet, and her perceived ability to identity new trends early. So people are paying attention to this report. Her last one was in 2019 and I mentioned her 2018 report on this blog, here.

At this point, it's boring to say that AI is ushering in "unprecedented" global change. Everyone sends around snippets from ChatGPT. I incorporate some sort of AI-powered tool all the time in my daily workflow. And we've started using it on our development projects to help with tedious things like design coordination. Eventually we'll probably stop calling it out as "AI" and just refer to it as the things that computers and the internet can do.

A few weeks ago I accidentally sparked, via this tweet, an entertaining debate about what it takes to be called a developer. This led to my post "Do you even develop, bro?", where I explained my view on when it might be appropriate. (Spoiler: It's a broad term.) But my friend Brendan Whitsitt of Imprint Development has just published an even better post on the topic. It's called "Developer vs. Dirt-Flipper" and you should give it a read.

In it, he says this:

So if we tried to sketch a Platonic ideal for what a developer is, we might say that the ideal developer would have a solid understanding of, and experience in, all phases of development, including construction. This person will have a holistic perspective that attempts to optimize across all phases of a project rather than just one part.

This doesn't relate directly to the debate of who should be called a developer, but I think it's an insightful comment. Developers have very specific skillsets, but they also tend to be generalists. Our job is to stitch together lots of different disciplines and elements to ultimately produce a space that people can live, work, play, and/or do other things inside. The more you know about the entire process, the better you can be at any one part.

I even think this transcends just the development process. The more you know and understand about cities, market trends, human behavior and countless other things, the more thoughtful you can be about formulating new developments. It's never ending and it makes for an interesting line of work. But I do think this raises the question of: When is it valuable to specialize?

Bond — which is a San Francisco-based VC firm with a cool website — just published this 340-page report on Artificial Intelligence. One of the authors of the report is Mary Meeker. She has been called the "Queen of the Internet" thanks to a 20-year run of presentations about the state of the internet, and her perceived ability to identity new trends early. So people are paying attention to this report. Her last one was in 2019 and I mentioned her 2018 report on this blog, here.

At this point, it's boring to say that AI is ushering in "unprecedented" global change. Everyone sends around snippets from ChatGPT. I incorporate some sort of AI-powered tool all the time in my daily workflow. And we've started using it on our development projects to help with tedious things like design coordination. Eventually we'll probably stop calling it out as "AI" and just refer to it as the things that computers and the internet can do.