> Lawyers and Physicians, Dentists, Nurses, and Dental Hygienists, they all do have to stay current - in fact, I believe that they are legally required to stay current. Now, HN is a tech board, so we don't hear from nearly as many Dental Hygienists here, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that DH's, at age 41, don't encounter the same issues of obsolescence as software developers do.
Because they are required as a condition of professional licensing to stay current (and have a documentary trail of staying current that matches and profession-wide accepted definition of what "staying current" means), which means that while there is some risk of being in a specialization for which demand is reduced, it is virtually impossible to not stay current in the manner expected in the industry without voluntarily choosing to abandon the profession. Consequently, its harder to have covert age discrimination with "not being current" as an excuse.
> The dimensionality may be a factor here… just as the path to becoming a programmer is much more vague and subjective than in many other fields, so is the path to remaining relevant as a programmer. It's not that it's strictly harder, it's that it's much more ambiguous.
Sure, but I don't think that is anything inherent in the subject matter ofprogramming that is less clear cut than, e.g., law, in those terms. Its just a difference in the social and regulatory context.