3 ms·
> Assembly programmers became C programmers became Python programmers. The abstraction rose, individual productivity increased, more total software got written,
by robotresearcher 9mo ago
> Assembly programmers became C programmers became Python programmers. The abstraction rose, individual productivity increased, more total software got written, and roughly similar numbers of people were employed writing it.
The number of programmers has changed so much, from ~zero in the 1940s to tens of thousands in the sixties, to, what, maybe 30 million today? While most programmers worked a little or a lot in ASM from invention until the 1980s, it's a very specialized role today.
I do not believe that 'roughly similar numbers of people were employed writing' ASM, C, and Python except for the instant that C outpaced ASM in the seventies and when Python outpaced ASM somewhere around the millennium.
Probably at no time were ASM, C, and Python programmers even close to similarly numerous.
- Terr_ 9mo agoI often like to point out that the growth can trick us into over-estimating the attrition/ageism of the industry. Sure, you barely meet any 40-year veterans... but that's partly because 40 years ago there were barely any 0-year newbies to start with.
- drivebyhooting 9mo agoIn theory it can. However in practice ageism in hiring is 100% observable. It’s basically the revealed preference of hiring managers. The seldom spoken reality is this: managers like them young and hungry with no external obligations; thus they’re maximally extractible.
- Terr_ 9mo ago> > can trick us into over-estimating > [it's] observable Nobody said it wasn't, I was quite deliberate in my wording.
- drivebyhooting 9mo agoI’m not sure what point you were trying to make then. At face value your post implies ageism is not a problem. Change the target demographic to a different “minority” - racial, ethnic, diverse - and observe the heavy connotation carried by downplaying severity.
- attila-lendvai 9mo agoage strongly influences a lot of variables that are important to an employer. race doesn't. they are not in the same category.
- drivebyhooting 9mo agoThat’s very funny. Of course it does, so of course there is ageism. That is ceteris paribus, you would prefer to hire a young gun over an old person. The same logic could be applied to other protected categories.
- attila-lendvai 9mo agoparse error.
- Terr_ 9mo ago"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." I think you lost track of the thread. You're acting as if the subject was already ageism, and I'm somehow arriving to downplay it. No, the subject was historical industry growth, and you can't just slam those two ideas together, you need some other idea in the chain to bridge them--like how growth skews our perceptions. Heck, if you care so much about ageism awareness, you should be thanking me for introducing it. ___________ Here's how the conversation would have gone if I'd done what you wanted: 1. robotresearcher: "Job openings have increased dramatically over time." 2. Nega-Terr_: "Guys, ageism exists! I won't say anything else, that'd just detract from its importance." 3. Someone: "Uhhhh, WTF? Where'd that come from? If anything, a constantly growing industry would make it easier for seniors to continue finding new jobs, a shrinking one is really where they'd be in trouble. What's wrong with you? Stop talking nonsense."
- dapperdrake 9mo agoStackOverflow had a different take: There was exponential growth in newcomers and with different languages and hardware becoming available. Each wave drowned out all of the previous field combined. Like colloquial "Moore's law".