5 ms·

> So what advantage does a 60-year-old .NET programmer have over a 27-year-old .NET programmer when they both have, at most, 5 years of experience doing .NET pr

by mullr 15y ago

> So what advantage does a 60-year-old .NET programmer have over a 27-year-old .NET programmer when they both have, at most, 5 years of experience doing .NET programming? Absolutely none. Pardon my french, but this is absolute, utter bollocks. I can only assume that this was written my a 27 year old .NET programmer who wants to think that the 60 year olds have nothing on him. Granted, I behaved the same way when I was a 25 year old .NET programmer. I've gotten over it. Such behavior should not be encouraged or glamorized.

16s 15y ago
Indeed. The older programmer has seen and fixed more problems. It's called experience.
- zainny 15y ago
  How do you reconcile that point of view with articles like http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/bay-area-technology-professionals-cant-get-hired-as-industry-moves-on.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/bay-area-technology-pro... (which appeared on Hacker News not too long ago if memory serves)? Very few companies, particularly those in the Valley, seem interested in hiring older workers. Does that not indicate there is little perceived value in years of experience beyond a certain point (say, 5, as the original article suggests)?
  - 16s 15y ago
    My guess is that they want to work them hard and pay them less and they know that older guys and gals won't accept those working conditions. They throw quantity and eagerness at problems. Not that younger programmers aren't good (they are) they just have less experience. I fear many younger technologists are abused. I see a lot burn-out. It's sad to see their desire and eagerness die. Edit: I'll add that I've seen young men (mid 20s) who have the cynicism and bitterness of much older men. That, to me, is sad. It shouldn't be like this.
    - zainny 15y ago
      If long term experience had real value in our industry, wouldn't most companies accept that while an older and more experienced person is more "particular" about their work conditions, it is worth the hassle to accommodate them because of the additional value they can bring? But that doesn't seem to happen. Or, in other words, companies continue to demonstrate they see little value in experience and the author of the article is bang on when talking about the temporal nature of knowledge capital and the absence of prestige in IT.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
adrusi 15y ago
Exactly, the author seems to think that every programming technology is isolated from all others. To the contrary, there is a huge amount of crossover between technologies even as separated as .NET and Haskell. He also says that 60-year-olds are less enthusiastic about learning new tech. Granted I'm even less qualified than him to judge how 60-year-olds think, but the way I see it, if a 60-year-old doesn't want to learn (or feels incapable of doing so efficiently) it's because he stopped learning at some point in his life. It's like exercise, a 70-year old who has gone to the gym two days a week for most of their life will be completely capable of exercising like they always have. If a programmer constantly makes an effort to stay on the cutting edge, they'll have no problems staying there no matter what their age.
thejteam 15y ago
It was an interesting choice of ages. We had a conversation at work about something like this not too long ago. It ended up boiling down to this, "The difference between an engineer with 5 years experience and an engineer with 10 years experience is significantly greater than that between an engineer with 10 years experience and an engineer with 25 years experience." Since presumably an engineer(or programmer) who is 27 has 5 years experience there is a world of difference between a 27 year old and a 60 year old. Now compare the 60 year old to a 35 year old. The choice would not be so obvious.
- wazoox 15y ago
  From my own personal experience, having employed a 60 yo person, I dare say that the oldest is actually much more available; he has no young children, no love story dramas, he isn't the less afraid to get up at dawn, he can work slightly slowly but with an extreme attention to details younger people will rarely be able to follow through, he rarely if ever go to bed at 3 a.m., and if he's friendly and competent he'll coach wonderfully young interns.
  - herval 15y ago
    In that case, hiring a recently-wed or someone with a baby is also worse than hiring a 60-70 year old? Also, how about energy? Do 60-year olds really have the same energy to keep up with new stuff as a young boy does?
    - wazoox 15y ago
      From my own 40 yo point of view, you can be energetic at 20, 40 or 60 all the same. The difference is of priorities. At 20, you may be eager to build your career; at 35, to take care of your children; etc. Every intelligent person can keep up with new stuff all the same; loving to learn is more a character than age thing. Now an important differentiator may be health. You'll find more 60 yo in bad health than 20 yo, and bad health definitely take a huge toll on efficacy and dynamism.
- greenyoda 15y ago

by mullr 15y ago

16s 15y ago

Indeed. The older programmer has seen and fixed more problems. It's called experience.

zainny 15y ago
How do you reconcile that point of view with articles like http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/bay-area-technology-professionals-cant-get-hired-as-industry-moves-on.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/bay-area-technology-pro... (which appeared on Hacker News not too long ago if memory serves)? Very few companies, particularly those in the Valley, seem interested in hiring older workers. Does that not indicate there is little perceived value in years of experience beyond a certain point (say, 5, as the original article suggests)?
- 16s 15y ago
  My guess is that they want to work them hard and pay them less and they know that older guys and gals won't accept those working conditions. They throw quantity and eagerness at problems. Not that younger programmers aren't good (they are) they just have less experience. I fear many younger technologists are abused. I see a lot burn-out. It's sad to see their desire and eagerness die. Edit: I'll add that I've seen young men (mid 20s) who have the cynicism and bitterness of much older men. That, to me, is sad. It shouldn't be like this.
  - zainny 15y ago
    If long term experience had real value in our industry, wouldn't most companies accept that while an older and more experienced person is more "particular" about their work conditions, it is worth the hassle to accommodate them because of the additional value they can bring? But that doesn't seem to happen. Or, in other words, companies continue to demonstrate they see little value in experience and the author of the article is bang on when talking about the temporal nature of knowledge capital and the absence of prestige in IT.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

adrusi 15y ago

Exactly, the author seems to think that every programming technology is isolated from all others. To the contrary, there is a huge amount of crossover between technologies even as separated as .NET and Haskell. He also says that 60-year-olds are less enthusiastic about learning new tech. Granted I'm even less qualified than him to judge how 60-year-olds think, but the way I see it, if a 60-year-old doesn't want to learn (or feels incapable of doing so efficiently) it's because he stopped learning at some point in his life. It's like exercise, a 70-year old who has gone to the gym two days a week for most of their life will be completely capable of exercising like they always have. If a programmer constantly makes an effort to stay on the cutting edge, they'll have no problems staying there no matter what their age.

thejteam 15y ago

It was an interesting choice of ages. We had a conversation at work about something like this not too long ago. It ended up boiling down to this, "The difference between an engineer with 5 years experience and an engineer with 10 years experience is significantly greater than that between an engineer with 10 years experience and an engineer with 25 years experience." Since presumably an engineer(or programmer) who is 27 has 5 years experience there is a world of difference between a 27 year old and a 60 year old. Now compare the 60 year old to a 35 year old. The choice would not be so obvious.

wazoox 15y ago
From my own personal experience, having employed a 60 yo person, I dare say that the oldest is actually much more available; he has no young children, no love story dramas, he isn't the less afraid to get up at dawn, he can work slightly slowly but with an extreme attention to details younger people will rarely be able to follow through, he rarely if ever go to bed at 3 a.m., and if he's friendly and competent he'll coach wonderfully young interns.
- herval 15y ago
  In that case, hiring a recently-wed or someone with a baby is also worse than hiring a 60-70 year old? Also, how about energy? Do 60-year olds really have the same energy to keep up with new stuff as a young boy does?
  - wazoox 15y ago
    From my own 40 yo point of view, you can be energetic at 20, 40 or 60 all the same. The difference is of priorities. At 20, you may be eager to build your career; at 35, to take care of your children; etc. Every intelligent person can keep up with new stuff all the same; loving to learn is more a character than age thing. Now an important differentiator may be health. You'll find more 60 yo in bad health than 20 yo, and bad health definitely take a huge toll on efficacy and dynamism.
greenyoda 15y ago