> Unfortunately, in computer programming you will run out of experience and depth that you can accumulate after about 8-10 years of work (say ages 22 - 32). Every new technology is just a variant of the previous 999 technologies. But you still keep getting older every year, and incurring the downsides of getting older!
I'm going to call bullshit on that. There are a lot of recycled technologies (especially in web), but the notion that after 8 years you know all there is to know -- that's absurd.
I just turned 30. I work with people both older and younger than me, but I learn way more from the 40+ year old people in my office than I do from the 20 year olds.
Like the parent tried to explain, different fields (programming, law, medicine, etc) have different experience curves.
There is definitely enough in programming to learn for 200 years, if we lived that long. It's just that when programming in area E, a 47 yo who learned A, B, C, D, and E does not have an advantage over a 32 yo who learned B, D, and E. But the 32 yo has the advantage of his youth.
I also don't get all the "I'm 30 and I'm doing ok" statements. The article is about issues you'll experience when you're 45 .. 49 .. 55 .. 59 .. 63 .. etc.
Edit: let me do an easy computation for you. Time from age 22 to age 32 = 10 years. Time from age 22 to age 67 = 45 years. Big difference!
>It's just that when programming in area E, a 47 yo who learned A, B, C, D, and E does not have an advantage over a 32 yo who learned B, D, and E.
Then maybe task E is not the right task for the 47 year old? Maybe when building another accounting system it's enough to know all about accounting systems, but the closer you get to the cutting edge the more useful broad knowledge gets.
For example there is just about nobody with 5 years of experience in VR-technology, but if you have worked in a number of even slightly related fields in the last 20 years you probably can bring a lot to the table.
But one of them has 15 years more time to get experience in a number of fields (or in depth in one or two fields). I think 15 years is enough to still make a difference in this regard.
I understood his argument, despite what your condescending comment suggests, I just reject the premise it's built on. His premise is that in 8-10 years of experience you will be "max-level-programmer" and after that point there's not much worth learning, and you're a depreciating asset and you should parlay your experience into something else.
The ageism in the tech field should bother everyone, because you too are one day going to be old.
I didn't mean for my comment to be condescending - sorry about that.
I was a computer programmer from 20 to 21 (I worked full time in college), and I changed fields at 21. I am in my 30s now. I didn't figure out these dynamics by myself - I was fortunate that my manager at the time was also changing fields, and he explained these things to me. He was in his early 30s and he became a doctor.
Now I am just trying to return the favor by describing these things to younger people on HN. And I read HN for kicks. :)
I'm going to call bullshit on that. There are a lot of recycled technologies (especially in web), but the notion that after 8 years you know all there is to know -- that's absurd.
I just turned 30. I work with people both older and younger than me, but I learn way more from the 40+ year old people in my office than I do from the 20 year olds.