I read a great article on Dev.to by Don Denoncourt called "On Getting Old(er) in Tech". I found it thoughtful and thought-provoking, and thought (hehe) that I'd add some of my (sorry) thoughts on being an older guy in tech.
To get things out of the way, I'm 56 years old, and have been developing with earnest for about 28 years. I was in the Navy and did Turbo Pascal and Delphi as a hobby. I learned BASIC in Junior High in the seventies, which I really enjoyed, but didn't do any more programming until a friend got me interested again in about 1990. During the 90's in the Navy, I programmed as a hobby, creating some modest shareware. I got a degree in Information Technology Management from the Naval Postgraduate School along the way. I left the Navy and have pretty much been doing professional development or been involved with development tools since the year 2000.
Okay, so I'm old. I'm sure that in the eyes of the development community, I'm a geezer. But I think that makes me a better developer.
Here are some of my thoughts on the matter.
I personally have never felt that my age has prevented me from doing or being who I want to be as a developer. I don't believe that I've been discriminated against because of my age.
Having said that, I do think, nevertheless, that there is a bias against older developers in the broader community. When you have, as Denoncourt points out, Mark Zuckerberg saying "I want to stress the importance of being young and technical. Young people are just smarter," there clearly is a problem. I'm going to completely ignore the legal problems that such a statement by Zuckerberg could engender, and discuss the practicalities of the issue.
People do not get stupider as they get older. They don't get smarter either -- IQ is pretty much a constant. What older people get is wiser. They gain what is commonly known as "experience." This experience is invaluable and very hard to come by. It takes, well, time to get experience, and short of genius, it takes experience to really become a great programmer.
Obviously a company should want smart people. But what they really should want is smart and experienced developers. That combination -- smart and experienced -- is a powerful combination that can only be found in developers how have been around the block a few times.
I suppose that young programmers are easier to overwork, as they generally have fewer family obligations and more to prove. Older developers usually have families and other obligations to tend to and can't put in 80 hour weeks. However, let us not confuse a flurry of activity for productivity. That's not to say that young programmers can't be effective. You can be a brilliant, highly effective programmer at any age. It is to say that "hours put in" doesn't necessarily equate to "quality software produced."
Quality software comes from knowing and applying solid, proven, and well-known software techniques -- techniques that are battle-tested and battle-proven.
While the latest fad can prove useful, experienced developers know not to jump on any old bandwagon that comes along, but rather to examine fads to determine which ones will stay on the road to success and which ones will careen into the ditch.
You might not be able to teach an old dog new tricks, but you can teach an old human new tricks. I believe that it is incumbent on a developer to be a life-long learner, no matter how old you are. Recently, I started learning TypeScript and Angular. I'm going to be speaking on both at the TechBash 2018 conference. Good programmers -- young and old -- learn constantly.
People of all ages can be stagnant. People of all ages can be highly-motivated, life-long learners. Age is not a factor in a person's ability and desire to learn and grow.
So to Mr. Zuckerberg I say -- you are wrong. As it's been said, age and experience will beat youth and enthusiasm everytime. And as it has also been said, you are only as young -- or old -- as you feel. Sure, some people might look askance at an older developer, but would you even want to work for or with someone like that?
