I wasn't specific on the technologies we need. I felt listing specific skillsets (knowledge of C# and IIS and Oracle) were a barrier to entry that wasn't necessary. My junior co-worker (by two weeks) felt that we should be focused on .NET only. Our managers are hiring for an entry level position. It started an argument where he takes the belief that we need C# and that a Java trained guy couldn't possibly adapt. I counter that there's not an infinite amount of knowledge in a programming language and that there's new languages out there and that it's fairly easy to pick up a programming language if one has knowledge of the functional programming world (C# added anonymous functions and generics and Java added anonymous classes and generics because of pressure from that world). Our code is better off by having it.
I've had this discussion before when I was working in a Java group within my department. I just don't think there's an infinite amount of knowledge in a programming language or a programming platform. I think someone comfortable the JPA can adapt to LINQ and to ADO.NET. Am I missing something in assuming that programming languages don't have any infinite amount of knowledge and that four years of experience dedicated solely to C# doesn't automatically make one a better programmer?