4 ms·

So.. could this problem solve itself over time? I always felt ageism was due to the fact that the field was young and was growing so fast that it kept the age o

So.. could this problem solve itself over time? I always felt ageism was due to the fact that the field was young and was growing so fast that it kept the age of the workers lower on average but that will change. That chart of companies shows correlation between company age and average employee age, they will all slowly go up overtime.

pmiller2 9y ago
By the time this problem solved itself, you and I will probably be at, near, or past retirement age.
kafkaesq 9y ago
The reasons are complex. Younger people really are faster and have more "energy". On a certain level this is just basic biophysics. Particularly the kind of "energy" most immediately associated with the modern dev grind (i.e. to work long hours, and pick up toolkit X at the drop of a hat, etc). And you know, to just "believe" (in your company's mission; in whatever your stack is made out of this particular microsecond; in "Agile", or whatever). None of which I'm knocking. A lot of times I feel I could still use that kind of energy. But there are other kind of "energy" - e.g. the energy to resist learning too much about toolkit X (very likely to be obsoleted within 3 years). Or to get to wrapped up the latest architecture "debate". Or for that matter, in your company's "mission" (before it's at least halfway baked). Or, when people in your company start bragging about how many hours they "work", how no one really takes vacations and all... the energy to speak the intuitive and well-documented truth about where that strategy inevitably leads. Both kinds of energy are needed. They aren't opposites; they're parts of a larger (necessary) whole. The mistake lies in thinking that only one kind of energy is valid and sufficient to get your "mission" off the ground.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  > Particularly the kind of "energy" most immediately associated with the modern dev grind (i.e. to work long hours, and pick up toolkit X at the drop of a hat, etc). And you know, to just "believe" (in your company's mission; in whatever your stack is made out of this particular microsecond; in "Agile", or whatever). I'm continuously fascinated by this sentiment (though I have lived it in a startup before). Aren't we as software engineers _supposed_ to make our jobs easier? Successively automate more and more? What makes "modern dev" more labor intensive than not "modern dev"?
  - StevePerkins 9y ago
    I have no idea what you're taking issue with here. The second-half of the parent comment just seems to be saying, "Younger developers are less jaded and cynical, and a lot of managers prefer that".
    - kafkaesq 9y ago
      "Younger developers are less jaded and cynical, and a lot of managers prefer that". Yes pretty much, but with a more positive spin - i.e. what one really needs is a healthy mix of jadedness and "believing".
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    I have to say I don't follow the "automation" aspect of what you're saying. What makes "modern dev" more labor intensive than not "modern dev"? Well it is, objectively, way broader and deeper than before the web explosion. Even aside from the web aspects - barely anyone did heavy database work back then. And if you had a reasonably firm grasp of one OO language - guess what, you were practically a "rock star" (well before the current usage of the term). You knew something about the differences between the Unix shells, and maybe something about inodes and fsck? Great, here's a "devops" (er, sysadmin) job for you. Nowadays there's just (conservatively stated) at least an order of magnitude of basic "stuff", much of it conceptually independent from the rest, and a lot of it quickly obsolescing (almost as soon as it "matures") - that one has to have a reasonably firm grasp of, just to move the needle from A to B. Or at least not come off as "fossilized or "enterprisey", when talking to "hot" companies, these days (I've actually had the latter said to me, as a description of me, over the phone - after an interview). So yes, objectively speaking - it's way more intense.

pmiller2 9y ago

By the time this problem solved itself, you and I will probably be at, near, or past retirement age.

kafkaesq 9y ago

The reasons are complex. Younger people really are faster and have more "energy". On a certain level this is just basic biophysics. Particularly the kind of "energy" most immediately associated with the modern dev grind (i.e. to work long hours, and pick up toolkit X at the drop of a hat, etc). And you know, to just "believe" (in your company's mission; in whatever your stack is made out of this particular microsecond; in "Agile", or whatever). None of which I'm knocking. A lot of times I feel I could still use that kind of energy. But there are other kind of "energy" - e.g. the energy to resist learning too much about toolkit X (very likely to be obsoleted within 3 years). Or to get to wrapped up the latest architecture "debate". Or for that matter, in your company's "mission" (before it's at least halfway baked). Or, when people in your company start bragging about how many hours they "work", how no one really takes vacations and all... the energy to speak the intuitive and well-documented truth about where that strategy inevitably leads. Both kinds of energy are needed. They aren't opposites; they're parts of a larger (necessary) whole. The mistake lies in thinking that only one kind of energy is valid and sufficient to get your "mission" off the ground.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago
> Particularly the kind of "energy" most immediately associated with the modern dev grind (i.e. to work long hours, and pick up toolkit X at the drop of a hat, etc). And you know, to just "believe" (in your company's mission; in whatever your stack is made out of this particular microsecond; in "Agile", or whatever). I'm continuously fascinated by this sentiment (though I have lived it in a startup before). Aren't we as software engineers _supposed_ to make our jobs easier? Successively automate more and more? What makes "modern dev" more labor intensive than not "modern dev"?
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  I have no idea what you're taking issue with here. The second-half of the parent comment just seems to be saying, "Younger developers are less jaded and cynical, and a lot of managers prefer that".
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    "Younger developers are less jaded and cynical, and a lot of managers prefer that". Yes pretty much, but with a more positive spin - i.e. what one really needs is a healthy mix of jadedness and "believing".
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  I have to say I don't follow the "automation" aspect of what you're saying. What makes "modern dev" more labor intensive than not "modern dev"? Well it is, objectively, way broader and deeper than before the web explosion. Even aside from the web aspects - barely anyone did heavy database work back then. And if you had a reasonably firm grasp of one OO language - guess what, you were practically a "rock star" (well before the current usage of the term). You knew something about the differences between the Unix shells, and maybe something about inodes and fsck? Great, here's a "devops" (er, sysadmin) job for you. Nowadays there's just (conservatively stated) at least an order of magnitude of basic "stuff", much of it conceptually independent from the rest, and a lot of it quickly obsolescing (almost as soon as it "matures") - that one has to have a reasonably firm grasp of, just to move the needle from A to B. Or at least not come off as "fossilized or "enterprisey", when talking to "hot" companies, these days (I've actually had the latter said to me, as a description of me, over the phone - after an interview). So yes, objectively speaking - it's way more intense.