Live data from Hacker News

Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

quora.com

81–90 of 411 posts

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#81

I'm frankly flabbergasted why silicon valley (apparently, from reading articles here) has this youth fixation. In my software dev experience the least useful people on the team have invariably been the youngest. My pet theory answer for my own question goes thusly: Young people are more easily indoctrinated / brainwashed and dominated and thats what Google and whoever really want in their employees.

This has to do with the nature of the apps.

In the Valley / consumer focused apps - they are often focused on both very young target users - AND - very new frameworks and technologies. Plus they work insane hours.

I worked in Software in Telecom as a young man, and I was surrounded by middle aged geniuses, I felt useless.

My buddy worked at a big consulting firm doing .com stuff, he was a primary lead.

So yes, it has a lot do with products, the industry, how fast things change etc..

I enjoy the frothiness of tech, but it's a career danger.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let me ask: how do you make it past 40 in software? Specifically, how do you position yourself so that you are actively sought after (rather than merely employable)?

Java and Spring, or C# and .net. Java is derided as the next cobol, but there is a lot of new development, lots of jobs, and strong demand for senior talent. Source; me, been doing java since 2003. Age 40+.

Java is absolutely rightly derided as the next COBOL because it is. It is the abstract concept of bureaucracy incarnated in code. But that means it will likely follow COBOLs trajectory. A million legacy systems written in it will underpin the central core of a million businesses, being the (entirely unrecognized) most important component of the entire corporate structure bar none. And those systems will need care and feeding in their old age.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#83
post #7

I am 50 and I do OK. I also see people around my age and older who do well too. It seems to me that a lot of people who get filtered out in their 30s should never have been in the profession either for lack of motivation, interest or talent. If you are not self motivated to constantly evolve you have a problem. Moreso than in a lot of other professions.

"If you are not self motivated to constantly evolve you have a problem. Moreso than in a lot of other professions."

I was self-motivated to constantly learn, and had no trouble doing it... when I was young. It was the right profession for me then, when I had the interest and passion.

After a while, though, much of it starts to seem the same. The towering vistas that were once full of mystery, adventure, and discovery turned in to endless plateaus of rinse and repeat learning of technical minutia and buzzword tech of the day. I also developed lots of new interests, and started to want to have an actual life outside of work.

So then I very consciously decided not to strive to excel in my field anymore, because it would just take way too much of my time, which I'd rather spend doing other things. Then, before too long, I burnt out, and took a long break, eventually coming back to the field because I burnt through all my savings and needed money. This happened a bunch of times, with ever longer breaks in between.

Every time, I was able to brush up on the technology knowledge and skills that I needed to get a job, but I was never as excited about it as I was when I was young, and actually started to dread working with it, as I found it mind-numbingly boring.

I should have definitely completely switched careers after my first major burnout, but I didn't, and I've come back to the field again and again instead. This has definitely been a mistake, but here I am. I'm good enough at what I do to get work, and to even impress my managers... while I still haven't burnt out this time around and am still capable of putting in the overtime to get a lot done. But it's just a matter of time until I burn out again, and this pattern of not working for extended periods of time looks horrible on my resume, I haven't learned nearly as much as I would have had I stayed employed the whole time, and my career is nowhere near as advanced as that of people who can hack full-time employment long-term.

I don't think my case is typical, as most people seem to stay employed continuously in the long run. But I can't, and I feel I'm way too old for a career change now... and, anyway, I suspect whatever it is that I'd switch careers to would get boring before long and I'd burn out again. My interests are far too varied and I can't stick to doing any one thing for long before getting bored.

This is not to mention all of the endless corporate bullshit one has to put up with at work. Some people are really career-oriented and can deal with it. I'm not.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#84
post #26

I think this bias needs to evolve, and maybe birth year is more descriptive than age. In 2000, a 40 year old was born in 1960, when the home PC was nearly 20 years off. A programmer who is 40 today was born in 1977, and they could learn to program while they were in diapers. These are very different experiences, and the bar will move over time.

Confirmed. I was born in 1977 and learned to program on a pocket TRS-80 at age 4 (no joke).

Born in 1984, learned to program on a C64. Also at age 4.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#85
37 with 17 years in tech and absolutely love writing code every day. Because I've always been good at keeping my expenses low, I'm also now making a good enough living to never have to think about money.

But what has kept me constantly improving is trying out many diffent things over the years: aside from having all of the roles of a software team at one point, I've also been a researcher, coach, consultant and CEO. Also in non tech-related fields.

But now I'm again back to being a programmer. It's the position where you can make the biggest difference.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are genius level people, not someone we can actually ever become one.

Most of the recent psychologists who study expert performers all tend to agree that "genius level" just like "innate talent" is a cognitive distortion and discredits the amount of actual effort, practice, and honing of their craft these individuals put into it. We are all born with the same brain* (edit: see the ted talk on the "After 83,000 brain scans"). Some of us just aren't born in the right environment to curat…

You answered way better than I could. Thanks.

Besides this, I think, focus among other things also plays a big part in your abilities. If I am checking FB every 5 mins then I will never be able to match the learning abilities of someone who does not even care what is happening around him while he is learning.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#87
post #55

I'm 35.5 years old and I just started a masters in CS program(have a BS in CS already), so fuck I hope not

Good luck! There is plenty of demand for mature people with a solid educational background.

Or just people with good business sense. We hired someone a while back that put on her CV/resume that she had experience working for companies. I forget how she phrased it, but "good business sense" catches the general idea.

It turns out she's amazing because she knows how business works and how to get things done efficiently and what the business really wants from her: Quick, stable code.

Others we've hired that didn't have this skill have not fared nearly so well. I'm definitely looking for that kind of thing in future hires now.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#89
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find a niche that rewards experience in something other than code. This could be non-technical (e.g. "business"), or it could be something more deeply technical (e.g. scaling, machine learning, search, etc.) To some extent, the older you get, the more this happens, naturally. But you can and should make strategic decisions about where you choose to devote your attention. The important principle is that you should dev…

Why would JS be less long-term-valuable? It's only 4 years younger than linux, it's more common than linux and has a much larger community (especially compared to the linux kernel driver one). I don't see either going anywhere in the next 20 years.

It was born as a 'just good enough' hack, jammed into a static document presentation system into which interactive application functionality was shoehorned with pain points at every turn. It currently writhes in a morass of dependency hell, sprouting a hundred duplicate efforts of trying to soften those pain points every day. And it managed to get so big because the W3C continued, year after year, to obstinately refuse to acknowledge the web as an application platform until very recently.

But, they did acknowledge it. And they're now making design decisions to facilitate the web as an application platform, rather than intentionally trying to make application development as difficult as possible to dissuade it. So now we've got WebAssembly and tomorrow or the day after we will have any language anyone wants to use being used. In that arena, Javascript will get pantsed and laughed out of the room. It will probably happen with pretty amazing speed, as there are legions of developers who have been holding their breath for this for 20 years.

Re: Is software development really a dead-end job after age 35-40?

#90
post #56

I'm frankly flabbergasted why silicon valley (apparently, from reading articles here) has this youth fixation. In my software dev experience the least useful people on the team have invariably been the youngest. My pet theory answer for my own question goes thusly: Young people are more easily indoctrinated / brainwashed and dominated and thats what Google and whoever really want in their employees.

It's not rocket science. Younger devs can be paid less and generally will voluntarily work longer hours for free. Sure, you need some senior developers mixed in as well but young energetic devs are more bang for the buck.

'more bang' depends on what metric you're going for.

From a "getting things done" perspective, I would vehemently disagree with you. If you care about things like 'having more reports' and 'spending investor money', then yes, you're correct.

The correct definition for senior developer vs junior developer is 'delivers company value without handholding' (vs 'with handholding'). If you've lucked into a young, hardworking dev who can do the former, remember to pay them well and don't burn them out. That crop will produce year after year for a while instead of just once or twice.

Post reply on HN