> But 20 years of studying algorithms or general language concepts I don't think that's quite what's valuable though. I'm right in the middle of "senior/not" (

> But 20 years of studying algorithms or general language concepts I don't think that's quite what's valuable though. I'm right in the middle of "senior/not" (~7 years of experience) and I think in general, even our new hires can code fairly well, and can even design quite well. What seniors have over juniors is just battle experience. I liken software devs to jungle guides. Even the best jungle guide hasn't seen every scrap of jungle and probably doesn't even necessarily have the best map of the jungle you're going to go through. But what they do know is how to use a machete and rope like its an extension of their arm, and what all the different kinds of quicksand and poisonous frogs are, and which water holes have clean water. Similarly, experienced software devs are going to know when it feels right to use various stacks of various complexities, when to KISS and when to do big-brain CS stuff, when to argue with someone else's manager and when to pick their battles. They'll just generally be more acquainted with the entire techno-social process of developing software that drives business value. "20 years of studying algorithms or general language concepts" would leave me with a pretty uninterested view of a candidate since those are frequently the least interesting parts of driving business impact.