3 ms·

From an employer perspective, as long as the employee is a good asset there's no dead-end. To be a good asset as a developer, you need to be good at coding and

From an employer perspective, as long as the employee is a good asset there's no dead-end. To be a good asset as a developer, you need to be good at coding and somehow easy to work with. That's it for an employer. Now, from an employee perspective it's a complete different story. When you have fresh grads coming in every day with a lot of energy and already up to date with all the latest trends and technologies, no family life, no mortgages, no kids, no responsibilities. How do you keep up with that at 40? They can spend 15h at the office who cares.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
You keep up by being better. Those kids can code 15 hours a day if they want. I'll code 8, and I'll still produce working code faster than them. I won't waste (as much) time with flawed designs. I won't write nearly as many bugs that then have to be fixed. My code will be more maintainable. In short, I'm more valuable than those kids. If an employer can't see that, then the employer is still at the kid level, and they aren't someone I want to work for. But if you're going to try to compete with the kids when you have just the same skills, well, that's a hard road. You have to have gotten better over the years.
- mooreds 8y ago
  > I'll still produce working code faster than them I think my advantage (I'm over 40) is that I produce the _right_ working code. Listen to the client, think about the problem, suggest short cuts or alternatives (including COTS if needed). I am much more focused on solving problems now than I was when I was younger.