7 ms·

Since I don't see this specifically addressed in the text: I suspect this is a classic case of survivorship bias. The same way the stock market looks better and

by kmavm 15y ago

Since I don't see this specifically addressed in the text: I suspect this is a classic case of survivorship bias. The same way the stock market looks better and better the further back you go, because you aren't tracking the stocks of companies that are no longer in business, developers probably look better and better the further they are into their careers, since all the ones who've fallen by the wayside probably were the weaker developers who found something better to do with their time. As a somewhat older developer, I find this a surprisingly difficult question to answer honestly. Comparing myself to myself from 10 years ago, I sincerely think I'm more effective, but self-delusion may play a part in that. I've probably lost some of my "step", in terms of raw capacity to memorize and compute mentally, and I have more commitments outside of the world of software, which dilutes my efforts further. Then again, the strategic ideas I have are more dependably correct, and I spend less time chasing down dead ends, either because I've been down them before or had the good luck of witnessing them second- or third-hand. I've gotten a chance to see a world-class developer very closely between the ages of 36 and 45. He started this period as, very easily, the greatest engineer I'd ever even heard stories of, and I'm pretty sure he got better over that decade. It can be done.

andrewcooke 15y ago
is it fair to call it a bias in this case? it doesn't alter the conclusion that older developers are both better and scarcer, on average. [disclaimer: 44 yo ;o] [ps. google has mitigated memory loss, i suspect.]
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  You are 100% right, a developer is a developer, so it's not bias. It could even be argued that the reason there are less older developers is because the better ones went into management and are no longer active developers. Now, this all assumes that developer activity on Stack Overflow is correlated roughly equivalently over most ages. If it is, then these plainly state that for any random developer you would interview, they are more likely to be more knowledgable (according to the definition extracted by Stack Overflow activity) the older they are. The fact that there may be fewer developers at an older age is irrelevant. Disclaimer: I'm 25
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - feralmoan 15y ago
    "It could even be argued that the reason there are less older developers is because the better ones went into management and are no longer active developers." On the contrary in my experience, engineers who are fed up with coding or find maintaining their skillset too tedious or time consuming to fit in with other responsibilities generally move into management (have kids? : move to an exec role). I've been offered several CTO positions, but still building systems while many collegues have chosen the ladder (33 yrs old here) - if anything a subset of older programmers is healthy for the ecosystem.
    - juiceandjuice 15y ago
      "have kids? : move to an exec role" Exactly - My point was that it is presumptuous (and irrelevant) to assume people leave development as they get older because they aren't very good at it. It's irrelevant because those people are, by definition, no longer developers. A bias could come into play if you could prove: Older developers who are (more/less) knowledgable are (more/less) likely to participate in Stack Overflow. or Younger developers who are (more/less) knowledgable are (less/more) likely to participate in Stack Overflow. The latter proposition of bias is probably less likely since the sample size of younger developers is much larger. I still think the conclusion is correct assuming the provided definitions: For any random developer you would interview from Stack Overflow, they are more likely to be more knowledgable the older they are. If the population on Stack Overflow is representative of the general developer population, than that assumption also holds true to the general population. Also, you highlight another interesting thing: The average age a man in the US gets married is close to 28, right smack in the middle of that distribution. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R1204&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-redoLog=false&-format=US-30&-mt_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_R1204_US30 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo...
- kmavm 15y ago
  I think "bias" is technically applicable. I.e., the population of older developers is not comparable to the population of younger developers because of survival (or if you prefer, self-selection) effects. Any non-trivial conclusions (e.g., that individual programmers should expect to get better with age, that your company should make an effort to recruit/retain older programmers, ...) from this data are confounded by these effects.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - wisty 15y ago
    Well, survivorship bias can still be a reason to recruit older programmers - you want the survivors. As for retention, you would hope that a company will know which of their older programmers are valuable.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  The question wasn't about finding out if older programmers are better, but if programmers get better as they grow older. Measuring the latter in terms of the former is highly prone to the survivor bias. The OP's data is evidence in favour of progress over time, but it's weak. Now, progress over time doesn't sound like such a silly idea, so even weak evidence counts for me.
jzoidberg 15y ago
I think you are over thinking it since everyone knows: Old Guys Rule
stiff 15y ago
I think Clarke's first law applies to programmers as well: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." When you are older you maybe really spend less time chasing dead ends, I agree with that, but to be fully sincere with oneself, some of those ends might end up not being that dead anymore 10 or 20 years after you've last bothered to visit them.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Oh man, I agree with this. Stuff I intended to get around to someday back in the 90's is just a CPAN download away now.
- kmavm 15y ago
  That's a great point. I try to actively fight conservatism, but it's probably a neurologically losing battle; as I get more experienced, I necessarily get more scarred, and will instinctively avoid the areas that have caused me professional pain. When this helps, we call it "learning," but in the limit it tends towards rigidity.
  - mironathetin 15y ago
    "...and will instinctively avoid the areas that have caused me professional pain." This is not good. You learned that your chosen solution did not work back then. This time, you know you have to try from the other side. This is learning too. I appreciate a lot if there is a chance to try again what did not work a while ago. As long as you don't run out of new ideas. So far I don't (46).
- lurker17 15y ago
  That quote sounds deep, but it reduces almost exactly to: "Almost everything is possible." More precisely: "If a distinguished but elderly scientist passes judgement on in idea, it is probably possible. Only ideas whose possibility are not judged might be impossible."
  - 15y ago
rbanffy 15y ago
I don't feel any smarter than I were on my 20's. OTOH, software has gotten much more complex. Mastering the Apple II ROM routines is one thing, but understanding how every piece in a complex web application (app server, rdbms, non-relational storage, cache) interact is much harder. After wrapping my brain around some concepts, it feels very thin. We rely on Google and the web to supplement our memories for things that 25 years ago depended on books and synaptic pathways. I'm quite sure I am much more effective today than I were 25 years ago, but a lot has to do with cognitive prosthetics.
- divtxt 15y ago
  I find web development less enjoyable than 5 or 10 years ago because of the increasing size and complexity of the stack. At least us old fogies have had the last 15 years to learn web development. How the hell do young programmers learn such a big stack in a few years? I'm guessing half using youthful energy and the other half skipped in blissful ignorance?! :)
  - ams6110 15y ago
    How the hell do young programmers learn such a big stack in a few years? They don't. Witness the never-ending repetition of basic mistakes leading to SQL injection vulnerabilities, script injection, etc.
    - smokeyj 15y ago
      I would bet more SQL injections occur due to lazyness than inexperience.
      - abahgat 15y ago
        Plus, many database libraries make it significantly easier to write vulnerable code than it is to write secure code.
      - adrianmsmith 15y ago
        I think one would need data to confirm that. I mean I am lazy, but not so much that I would knowingly write insecure code for my customers; I'm can't imagine that many developers are different in that respect?
IsaacSchlueter 15y ago
> Since I don't see this specifically addressed in the text: I suspect this is a classic case of survivorship bias. The text didn't seem to do much besides present the stats. But he say this: I knew that with age coders tend to switch careers, but I was surprised to see the size of the drop. After the peak age of 27, number of developers halves every 6 to 7 years. I figured that "survivorship bias" was sort of the exact point he was trying to make. Beyond that, there's really no discussion of causation (getting older makes one more "mature" or whatever), so I think it's implied that weeding out less committed devs is exactly what's going on.

by kmavm 15y ago

andrewcooke 15y ago

is it fair to call it a bias in this case? it doesn't alter the conclusion that older developers are both better and scarcer, on average. [disclaimer: 44 yo ;o] [ps. google has mitigated memory loss, i suspect.]

juiceandjuice 15y ago
You are 100% right, a developer is a developer, so it's not bias. It could even be argued that the reason there are less older developers is because the better ones went into management and are no longer active developers. Now, this all assumes that developer activity on Stack Overflow is correlated roughly equivalently over most ages. If it is, then these plainly state that for any random developer you would interview, they are more likely to be more knowledgable (according to the definition extracted by Stack Overflow activity) the older they are. The fact that there may be fewer developers at an older age is irrelevant. Disclaimer: I'm 25
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- feralmoan 15y ago
  "It could even be argued that the reason there are less older developers is because the better ones went into management and are no longer active developers." On the contrary in my experience, engineers who are fed up with coding or find maintaining their skillset too tedious or time consuming to fit in with other responsibilities generally move into management (have kids? : move to an exec role). I've been offered several CTO positions, but still building systems while many collegues have chosen the ladder (33 yrs old here) - if anything a subset of older programmers is healthy for the ecosystem.
  - juiceandjuice 15y ago
    "have kids? : move to an exec role" Exactly - My point was that it is presumptuous (and irrelevant) to assume people leave development as they get older because they aren't very good at it. It's irrelevant because those people are, by definition, no longer developers. A bias could come into play if you could prove: Older developers who are (more/less) knowledgable are (more/less) likely to participate in Stack Overflow. or Younger developers who are (more/less) knowledgable are (less/more) likely to participate in Stack Overflow. The latter proposition of bias is probably less likely since the sample size of younger developers is much larger. I still think the conclusion is correct assuming the provided definitions: For any random developer you would interview from Stack Overflow, they are more likely to be more knowledgable the older they are. If the population on Stack Overflow is representative of the general developer population, than that assumption also holds true to the general population. Also, you highlight another interesting thing: The average age a man in the US gets married is close to 28, right smack in the middle of that distribution. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-_box_head_nbr=R1204&-ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&-redoLog=false&-format=US-30&-mt_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_R1204_US30 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-geo...
kmavm 15y ago
I think "bias" is technically applicable. I.e., the population of older developers is not comparable to the population of younger developers because of survival (or if you prefer, self-selection) effects. Any non-trivial conclusions (e.g., that individual programmers should expect to get better with age, that your company should make an effort to recruit/retain older programmers, ...) from this data are confounded by these effects.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- wisty 15y ago
  Well, survivorship bias can still be a reason to recruit older programmers - you want the survivors. As for retention, you would hope that a company will know which of their older programmers are valuable.
loup-vaillant 15y ago
The question wasn't about finding out if older programmers are better, but if programmers get better as they grow older. Measuring the latter in terms of the former is highly prone to the survivor bias. The OP's data is evidence in favour of progress over time, but it's weak. Now, progress over time doesn't sound like such a silly idea, so even weak evidence counts for me.

jzoidberg 15y ago

I think you are over thinking it since everyone knows: Old Guys Rule

stiff 15y ago

I think Clarke's first law applies to programmers as well: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." When you are older you maybe really spend less time chasing dead ends, I agree with that, but to be fully sincere with oneself, some of those ends might end up not being that dead anymore 10 or 20 years after you've last bothered to visit them.

Vivtek 15y ago
Oh man, I agree with this. Stuff I intended to get around to someday back in the 90's is just a CPAN download away now.
kmavm 15y ago
That's a great point. I try to actively fight conservatism, but it's probably a neurologically losing battle; as I get more experienced, I necessarily get more scarred, and will instinctively avoid the areas that have caused me professional pain. When this helps, we call it "learning," but in the limit it tends towards rigidity.
- mironathetin 15y ago
  "...and will instinctively avoid the areas that have caused me professional pain." This is not good. You learned that your chosen solution did not work back then. This time, you know you have to try from the other side. This is learning too. I appreciate a lot if there is a chance to try again what did not work a while ago. As long as you don't run out of new ideas. So far I don't (46).
lurker17 15y ago
That quote sounds deep, but it reduces almost exactly to: "Almost everything is possible." More precisely: "If a distinguished but elderly scientist passes judgement on in idea, it is probably possible. Only ideas whose possibility are not judged might be impossible."
- 15y ago

rbanffy 15y ago

I don't feel any smarter than I were on my 20's. OTOH, software has gotten much more complex. Mastering the Apple II ROM routines is one thing, but understanding how every piece in a complex web application (app server, rdbms, non-relational storage, cache) interact is much harder. After wrapping my brain around some concepts, it feels very thin. We rely on Google and the web to supplement our memories for things that 25 years ago depended on books and synaptic pathways. I'm quite sure I am much more effective today than I were 25 years ago, but a lot has to do with cognitive prosthetics.

divtxt 15y ago
I find web development less enjoyable than 5 or 10 years ago because of the increasing size and complexity of the stack. At least us old fogies have had the last 15 years to learn web development. How the hell do young programmers learn such a big stack in a few years? I'm guessing half using youthful energy and the other half skipped in blissful ignorance?! :)
- ams6110 15y ago
  How the hell do young programmers learn such a big stack in a few years? They don't. Witness the never-ending repetition of basic mistakes leading to SQL injection vulnerabilities, script injection, etc.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    I would bet more SQL injections occur due to lazyness than inexperience.
    - abahgat 15y ago
      Plus, many database libraries make it significantly easier to write vulnerable code than it is to write secure code.
    - adrianmsmith 15y ago
      I think one would need data to confirm that. I mean I am lazy, but not so much that I would knowingly write insecure code for my customers; I'm can't imagine that many developers are different in that respect?

IsaacSchlueter 15y ago

> Since I don't see this specifically addressed in the text: I suspect this is a classic case of survivorship bias. The text didn't seem to do much besides present the stats. But he say this: I knew that with age coders tend to switch careers, but I was surprised to see the size of the drop. After the peak age of 27, number of developers halves every 6 to 7 years. I figured that "survivorship bias" was sort of the exact point he was trying to make. Beyond that, there's really no discussion of causation (getting older makes one more "mature" or whatever), so I think it's implied that weeding out less committed devs is exactly what's going on.