4 ms·

...and that's exactly the attitude the author is pointing out.

• IshKebab 10y ago
  No, the author is actually saying that that attitude is fine. His point is that you need to keep learning and doing things that are relevant today, not learn today's technology and then stick with it for the rest of your career. > I could tell you about all my accomplishments over three decades, such as replacing the use of a System/3 punch card system with the AS/400, writing a Cobol debugger, or…. Ah, I’m boring you. What you do care about are things I did in the last two years. RPG is only relevant today in the same way Cobol is.
  • inimino 10y ago
    The feeling your comment conveys is not "keep learning". The feeling is that by talking about "archaic" stuff, the author isn't "doing himself any favours", i.e. he makes himself sound old. That's actually his point. Someone who has seen a technology mature and develop over decades, seen the hype trains come and go, projects succeed and fail, might be a bit wiser than someone fresh out of Stanford. He might have some ideas about how to build maintainable systems after working on some that are older than most developers. If you don't see it, that's on you, not on the author for mentioning his particular "archaic" specialization.
• OJFord 10y ago
  No, I agree with the parent commenter - but it's not that the language is old that's the problem. If the friend mentioned lost or left his current job, he'd probably (?) struggle to find another. It wouldn't be nasty ageism, it'd be "sorry all your experience is with a technology irrelevant to us; that we haven't even heard of". I say this going on the article alone - of course, for all I know the guy's an avid Ruby/Node/Elixir/whatever's-hot user for a range of awesome side-projects.