5 ms·

"Employers justify shunting aside midcareer programmers on the ground that they lack skills in the latest software languages." I don't see what's wrong with th

"Employers justify shunting aside midcareer programmers on the ground that they lack skills in the latest software languages." I don't see what's wrong with that. Clearly, to command a higher salary, an employee has to offer more than someone who gets paid less. And if in fact that employee has less to offer than a more junior person, because their skills are obsolete, it's even more of a reason to let them go. I guess it's not a very comfortable position to be in- having to always prove your worth to an employer- but I think it's unavoidable, especially in an industry that changes quickly.

drawkbox 17y ago
True but on the flipside just because someone is young doesn't mean they will provide more value. One thing that is interesting about this article is that it was written just as the internet/web boom was happening. It is important to note that a whole slew of industries and job tracks have been created since then. It is also very important to note that software development really wasn't a field until the 70's. So what we have is a young industry, thus younger people in it. The age of someone that started development young in the early days of the web (mid-90s), let's say 1995, would be approx 32-33. Anyone older than that had to come into web from pre-web industries, thus lacking in ability to change and learn to someone coming in clean. But nowadays an industry really was born around the late 1990s that will get older and more skilled, as well as seeing young come in, at least in terms of web based development, game development and other recent web industries. It would be like when radio started where people getting into it were young, as time went on it wasn't about age but skill and value. Same will happen with software or web development. Young will always be a key factor in software and web development but the position of the industry in time gives it a skew that appears ageism is more rampant. This article was even more lodged into a time where hardly anyone knew the web would change the world and grow fields and industry as much as it did. At this point the people that were going to go into marketing, radio, tv are now all going to the web. So really, I agree it will be up to providing value and innovating but we will see the industry, especially the web industry, mature to where it isn't just the young running it. I would say a prime is after someone went to school, and programmed for at least 8-10 years. This is when programmers start becoming efficient and product developers. The earliest that could happen for most people is late 20's early 30's. Also, the best programmers are efficient and have a business and marketing edge. If you have that you won't need to work as long because you will be creating the companies and providing the programming jobs to old and young, or rather just skilled workers in the newest industry that is transforming all other industries.
comatose_kid 17y ago
An experienced programmer can learn a lot about a new language in a relatively short period of time. A lot of times, the language isn't the issue, understanding the system is the issue. So I don't think it's the first thing I would think of when deciding to hire someone. If an engineer has worked on cool things, and done cool things, I wouldn't care if they didn't know X.
troystribling 17y ago
The article misrepresents what I see happening. In larger companies engineers are treated as a commodity so salaries stay low when compared to a similar level of experience in management, sales or marketing. People leave engineering to pursue higher paying opportunities. In tech companies management sales and marketing are mostly comprised of people who were once engineers. I have worked with many people and usually those in their 40's and 50's that stay in engineering stay because they like it and are willing to sacrifice higher compensation. As a group i believe they are more competent. I have interviewed many recent college grads that could barley articulate what a virtual function was in C++ or Java and how or why you would use it. These concepts are more than 30's years old and have been in common use in software development for the past 20 years.
azanar 17y ago
I don't see anything wrong with that either, but I think the quote is phrasing it slightly wrong. Here's how I would write that sentence: "Employers justify shunting aside mid-career programmers on the ground that they lack the motivation to develop skills in, among other thing, the latest software languages." The problem is that this lack of motivation won't show up until the programmer is midcareer. When they graduated from college/trade school/etc, they were likely trained in some the latest technologies and languages. Based solely on skill set, they looked motivated enough; maybe not as much as some, but certainly more so than the mid-career programmer was just kicked to the curb for not knowing anything from more recent than five years ago. But they stagnated, because they really weren't motivated or interested in what they learned beyond the predictable payout it guaranteed.. They went to school because they needed that structure to force themselves to learn material they were told would be highly lucrative. Learning more about their field was hard and not at all satisfying, so they made the gamble that they could coast on what they learned in school until retirement. Unfortunately, technology moves fast enough that their gamble blew up in their face. They wouldn't be able to see it coming either, because the structure they embed themselves in to increase the odds of their gamble would be equally phobic of new advances. The realization would happen suddenly, likely due to an internal shake-up either by new management or the same old technology no longer being good enough. The problem is that a course in the hot new language du jour isn't enough. The problem is that their lack of motivation is now painfully obvious to everyone. They aren't the least bit curious about new advancements, otherwise they would know something about them. The knowledge they get from the training course will inevitably become obsolete again in another few years, because they'll never supplement or expand upon it. This is the real reason for the shunting, as I see it. And I, like paulbaumgart, see nothing wrong with it.
adamc 17y ago
Practically, it means there is a lot wrong with programming as a career choice -- for a large number of students, it will have been a poor investment. I don't see much reason to sympathize with the employers, either.
- paulbaumgart 17y ago
  It appears to me that it's more a problem of unrealistic expectations. If somebody else is willing to do a better job for less money, a person's got to either improve/update their skills or start asking for a smaller salary. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say I sympathize with the employers, but I can certainly understand the rationale.
  - myth_drannon 17y ago
    The problem is the more experienced you become at some point the "worse" professionally you will be perceived, unlike 90% of all the professions out there that the older guys will ALWAYS be better.
joe_the_user 17y ago
Experienced programmers have many skills aside from "the latest language". The approach of jettisoning older, more skilled programmers because they cost more and don't know languages with the latest bells and whistles is similar to the general approach of selling poor quality or defective products of all sorts which happen to have the latest marketing bells and whistles. It is rational for companies to do if they can get away with it. It is rational for us to punish companies harshly for doing if we can.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

drawkbox 17y ago

True but on the flipside just because someone is young doesn't mean they will provide more value. One thing that is interesting about this article is that it was written just as the internet/web boom was happening. It is important to note that a whole slew of industries and job tracks have been created since then. It is also very important to note that software development really wasn't a field until the 70's. So what we have is a young industry, thus younger people in it. The age of someone that started development young in the early days of the web (mid-90s), let's say 1995, would be approx 32-33. Anyone older than that had to come into web from pre-web industries, thus lacking in ability to change and learn to someone coming in clean. But nowadays an industry really was born around the late 1990s that will get older and more skilled, as well as seeing young come in, at least in terms of web based development, game development and other recent web industries. It would be like when radio started where people getting into it were young, as time went on it wasn't about age but skill and value. Same will happen with software or web development. Young will always be a key factor in software and web development but the position of the industry in time gives it a skew that appears ageism is more rampant. This article was even more lodged into a time where hardly anyone knew the web would change the world and grow fields and industry as much as it did. At this point the people that were going to go into marketing, radio, tv are now all going to the web. So really, I agree it will be up to providing value and innovating but we will see the industry, especially the web industry, mature to where it isn't just the young running it. I would say a prime is after someone went to school, and programmed for at least 8-10 years. This is when programmers start becoming efficient and product developers. The earliest that could happen for most people is late 20's early 30's. Also, the best programmers are efficient and have a business and marketing edge. If you have that you won't need to work as long because you will be creating the companies and providing the programming jobs to old and young, or rather just skilled workers in the newest industry that is transforming all other industries.

comatose_kid 17y ago

An experienced programmer can learn a lot about a new language in a relatively short period of time. A lot of times, the language isn't the issue, understanding the system is the issue. So I don't think it's the first thing I would think of when deciding to hire someone. If an engineer has worked on cool things, and done cool things, I wouldn't care if they didn't know X.

troystribling 17y ago

The article misrepresents what I see happening. In larger companies engineers are treated as a commodity so salaries stay low when compared to a similar level of experience in management, sales or marketing. People leave engineering to pursue higher paying opportunities. In tech companies management sales and marketing are mostly comprised of people who were once engineers. I have worked with many people and usually those in their 40's and 50's that stay in engineering stay because they like it and are willing to sacrifice higher compensation. As a group i believe they are more competent. I have interviewed many recent college grads that could barley articulate what a virtual function was in C++ or Java and how or why you would use it. These concepts are more than 30's years old and have been in common use in software development for the past 20 years.

azanar 17y ago

I don't see anything wrong with that either, but I think the quote is phrasing it slightly wrong. Here's how I would write that sentence: "Employers justify shunting aside mid-career programmers on the ground that they lack the motivation to develop skills in, among other thing, the latest software languages." The problem is that this lack of motivation won't show up until the programmer is midcareer. When they graduated from college/trade school/etc, they were likely trained in some the latest technologies and languages. Based solely on skill set, they looked motivated enough; maybe not as much as some, but certainly more so than the mid-career programmer was just kicked to the curb for not knowing anything from more recent than five years ago. But they stagnated, because they really weren't motivated or interested in what they learned beyond the predictable payout it guaranteed.. They went to school because they needed that structure to force themselves to learn material they were told would be highly lucrative. Learning more about their field was hard and not at all satisfying, so they made the gamble that they could coast on what they learned in school until retirement. Unfortunately, technology moves fast enough that their gamble blew up in their face. They wouldn't be able to see it coming either, because the structure they embed themselves in to increase the odds of their gamble would be equally phobic of new advances. The realization would happen suddenly, likely due to an internal shake-up either by new management or the same old technology no longer being good enough. The problem is that a course in the hot new language du jour isn't enough. The problem is that their lack of motivation is now painfully obvious to everyone. They aren't the least bit curious about new advancements, otherwise they would know something about them. The knowledge they get from the training course will inevitably become obsolete again in another few years, because they'll never supplement or expand upon it. This is the real reason for the shunting, as I see it. And I, like paulbaumgart, see nothing wrong with it.

adamc 17y ago

Practically, it means there is a lot wrong with programming as a career choice -- for a large number of students, it will have been a poor investment. I don't see much reason to sympathize with the employers, either.

paulbaumgart 17y ago
It appears to me that it's more a problem of unrealistic expectations. If somebody else is willing to do a better job for less money, a person's got to either improve/update their skills or start asking for a smaller salary. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say I sympathize with the employers, but I can certainly understand the rationale.
- myth_drannon 17y ago
  The problem is the more experienced you become at some point the "worse" professionally you will be perceived, unlike 90% of all the professions out there that the older guys will ALWAYS be better.

joe_the_user 17y ago

Experienced programmers have many skills aside from "the latest language". The approach of jettisoning older, more skilled programmers because they cost more and don't know languages with the latest bells and whistles is similar to the general approach of selling poor quality or defective products of all sorts which happen to have the latest marketing bells and whistles. It is rational for companies to do if they can get away with it. It is rational for us to punish companies harshly for doing if we can.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]