I think software professionals' problems go deeper than biased perceptions of management that undervalue experience. Unlike other forms of engineering, software

I think software professionals' problems go deeper than biased perceptions of management that undervalue experience. Unlike other forms of engineering, software hasn't developed the same feedback-driven processes to ensure efficiacy, reproducibility, safety, or reliability -- where standard metrics of practice have been developed through methodical exploration, optimization, and repetition. To wit, we still don't know how to make software 10% better. Ergo, we don't know in what way a more experienced developer can add value over a newbie. So why pay older devs more or retain them, when it's easier and cheaper to boss around neophytes who don't have family distractions or need health care? Professional advancement in any field requires mastery. But instead of building "on the shoulders of giants", as is central to masters of science and of classic forms of engineering, the definition of software mastery remains qualitative and vague. Historically, evolution of software tools, practices and standards has been driven less by the systematic learning of what techniques work or don't, and more by adoption of styles and fashions: "This programming model/tool is better than that alternative. How do I know this? I just do, and I'm a smart guy." Maybe it's not surprising then that even software managers, who came up through these ranks and presumably should respect the evolutionary enrichment and advancement of software pros, don't. In the end, it's cost and trendiness that rules the software dev hiring process, rather than experience-driven insights into S/W practices & principles or battle-hardened expertise in building better apps.