
Is Software Development Really a Dead-End Job After 35-40? - kellet
https://dzone.com/articles/is-software-development-really-a-dead-end-job-afte?oid=hn
======
earcaraxe
"There were also a couple of companies that assigned me coding tests where
they asked me to “print a ladder” and “find repeating numbers.” I rejected
those tests not because of arrogance but because my skills were beyond what
they thought is needed from the role. And yes, the roles were for a Software
Architect. However, instead of testing my skills in architecture and logic, I
had to print a ladder on the screen."

This is arrogance. In my experience, most companies throw simple tests even at
people applying for higher positions for several reasons:

1\. It very quickly sorts out people who lie on their resume

2\. You can tell a lot about a person's skill level by how they answer even a
simple coding assignment - how are functions and variables named, does it take
in args, what style is the commenting, does it do error handling, input
validation, which language features are used to solve it etc, etc?

~~~
Jemmeh
+1 There's a huge amount of people who lie on their resume, and simple
questions weed them out with very little time investment on real applicants.

~~~
Analemma_
To be honest, it's also a good filter for people like, well, the author. I
don't want to work with an arrogant "rockstar" who's "too good" for FizzBuzz.

------
ImTalking
I think software development is the greatest vocation for a 'older' person,
you just have to look at it differently. I'm 57, and I KNOW I am unemployable
and I'm fine with that.

To me, software is only a tool to get where I want. The potential is the
products that I can produce, not the actual career of writing software, and
I'm bringing my 30 years of business knowledge to the table.

I know what businesses want. I know what steps to take. I know what kind of
relationship a business wants with their software vendor. Case in point: my
current project is a very mature industry where the current market is 40%
larger companies serviced by a couple of large ISVs, but 60% of the smaller
companies can't afford these ISV platforms and rely on a few old outdated
packages or roll their own. My sole client now is a very small operation but
she's got great insight to where she wants to go and what functionality will
take her there.. like social media integration, ongoing customer touches, SMS,
etc (which the current crop of platforms don't have), which makes her the
perfect first client. And she feels comfortable that I can become a good
partner of hers because a) I know what to do, and b) I don't bullshit. And
yes, she's very aware I'm 57. So what. And, unlike the younger developers,
I've got a little money and security backing me so I can take the time to
develop the platform full-time.

I know I can't get a job, but I can make one. What other industry can you do
that at 57?

------
dexwiz
I am a Software Dev in my mid 20s and posts like this always make me nervous.
I love my craft, and want to improve it, but recognize it will be another 5 to
7 years before I am truly proficient. Just in time to be obsolete. How do I
combat this? Better networking? Starting my own business? Consulting?

I would like to believe that people who find jobs don't write posts like this
to provide the opposite experience. But it seems to be weighted so heavily on
the negative, it hards to believe the positive does exist.

But then I think about the jobs they are applying for. Basic coding tests for
an Architect? Are they really hiring an Architect or just the second developer
and CTO is already taken? Start ups seem to like to assign titles from the top
down, but you cannot exactly have an Architect if its you and one other
person.

Also 99% rejection rate without an interview? That sounds like you are
spamming your resume to everyone, don't know how to write a resume, or are
woefully under qualified and don't know it.

~~~
dozzie
> [...] it will be another 5 to 7 years before I am truly proficient. Just in
> time to be obsolete. How do I combat this? Better networking? Starting my
> own business? Consulting?

Judging from how you use it, I think that under the word "obsolete" you mean
something different than how I understand it. Care to clarify?

~~~
dickbasedregex
Spend N years getting to be proficient in a technology. N+1 years later most
have abandoned that tech. Do you jump techs or go into management?

I assume that's what he/she means.

~~~
mcv
Learning new technology is part of the job. Though there are still tons of
companies stuck with older technologies. Ancient, sometimes.

~~~
dickbasedregex
Sure but every jump is opportunity cost. The older you get the harder it's
going to be to pick up yet another language with its own ecosystem, tool
chains, frameworks, the works.

Are you always picking up new skills or perspectives by doing that? Sure. Do
you still have to be stingy with your resources (time, energy, interest)?
Absolutely.

~~~
mcv
Depends on how much you enjoy learning, I suppose. I love learning new things.
I'm not stingy on things I love. I don't doubt it's going to get harder to
learn after retirement, but that's still more than 20 years away for me.

------
anon543210
I agree with the author. As someone in their late 30's back in the job market
due to joining a few poor startup opportunities, its terrible. Software
engineering is one of the few career paths that experience doesn't mean shit.
Everyone here is saying yes its not a big deal to answer stupid questions like
fizzbuzz, and while I do answer them... it really inconsequential to the job.
Yes I have to regularly practice on sites like hackerrank that really have
little to do with my capabilities in executing in a real environment, but
really its just memorizing and practice that are almost unrelated to my job
function.

Sure you can blame people for not keeping up with their skills and knowledge
set like mikestew, but a lot of times this is not what you're interviewed on.
Its like interviewing companies are so lazy as to not check your references.
Most of the time if the interviewer is knowledgable they should be able to
weed out people that are lying on their resumes. Maybe the problem is not with
the people lying on their resumes and people that are doing the interviewing.

If I could do it over again, I probably would have gone down a different
career path and programmed as a hobby.

~~~
mcv
> If I could do it over again, I probably would have gone down a different
> career path and programmed as a hobby.

Really? While I'd love to program as a hobby, I don't know what I'd do as a
job then. For me, programming is easy money. I have no what else I could do.
Game designer perhaps. Or musician. But those are really better kept as a
hobby.

------
curtis
I've certainly seen some evidence that getting hired is harder now that I'm
older, but I'm not actually sure about the causation. I've seen lots of second
hand evidence that getting hired is a _lot_ harder now for _everybody_ ,
regardless of age.

This is just a theory, but I think we've got a situation where there are about
the same number of software engineers out there looking for jobs as ever, and
there are about the same number of jobs as ever, but for some reason the
system has evolved to where applicants have to apply to a much larger number
of positions than they used to, and employers have to screen a much larger
number of applicants. When this happens, applicants get much less picky about
the positions they apply for (and _have_ to get less picky) and employers end
up screening on more and more arbitrary criteria.

Part of this might just be what you could call the "online dating" problem,
where the problem is that the technology has made it way too easy to make
superficial contacts, so contactees get super-dismissive, and contactors
decide that if they're going to continue playing the game they're just going
to have to make an even greater number of superficial contacts, contactees get
even more dismissive, and eventually everybody just gets really jaded.

Another part might be (and I should stress again that I'm just hypothesizing
here) that because there are so many applicants for each position now, that
there is, almost by necessity, a screening layer of professional HR hiring
people (not just the classic recruiters, but "sourcers", recruiters working
directly for employers, full-time HR people who specialize in hiring, etc.)
And it's actually a real problem because these people aren't, in general,
competent to be screening applicants, and indeed _can 't_ be, unless they are
former software engineers themselves.

~~~
Silhouette
_And it 's actually a real problem because [professional HR hiring people]
aren't, in general, competent to be screening applicants, and indeed can't be,
unless they are former software engineers themselves._

Bingo. Unfortunately, in a situation where it is typically in both sides' best
interests to play to their strengths and hide their weaknesses as much as they
reasonably can (and sometimes more), it is hard to see how to fix that
problem. I suspect the rules of the game need to change, so that technical
experts _are_ involved much earlier in the process, even if it means staff
with software development or related roles have to step away from their normal
work now and then to participate in recruitment activities.

~~~
curtis
_I suspect the rules of the game need to change, so that technical experts are
involved much earlier in the process, even if it means staff with software
development or related roles have to step away from their normal work now and
then to participate in recruitment activities._

I totally agree with you. In an ideal world (at least a better one), I imagine
it would go something like this:

Engineering: We need to hire some more people.

HR: Why are you telling us? That's not our problem.

Engineering: ?!

 _some time later_

Engineering: OK, we've found a guy we want to hire.

HR: Excellent. We can take it from here.

Note: I am not exaggerating for effect here. I am totally serious. The hiring
of engineers should _not_ be an HR problem.

~~~
Silhouette
Curiously, that _is_ how it's usually worked in the smaller companies I've
worked for over the years. There might have been some sort of external
recruitment agency involved in some cases, but the in-house people driving the
process were always people like team leaders or department heads where the new
recruit would be working, and typically the CVs were triaged or reviewed by a
couple of other senior people within those teams or departments.

I've never applied to a very large company via the equivalent process myself,
only wound up in them through other means. However, seeing from inside how
things have sometimes been handled, with HR/legal driving the process and
technical people taking a back seat, I can't say I'm regretting my life
choices here. :-)

------
baccheion
It can be bad at startups and certain companies, as they don't want to pay the
higher salaries required and want people who will work like dogs.

The latter is funny, as when I started out (and maybe even now), I was always
up for putting many hours into the product I was working, but only if it was
worth doing and interesting to me. What I quickly learned was that these
projects did not exist, especially at larger companies, and if they did, they
were almost impossible to join. And even then, once on the project, political
BS and favoritism could easily leave you working on an irrelevant/meaningless
feature.

The reverse of "aging out" ("they're young, so they're stupid") is what I
experienced when starting out.

While at eBay, the idiot managers did everything in their power to try to
paint me as a stupid know-nothing and would constantly try to box me in.
Whenever I did anything that showed ability, knowledge, etc, they'd freak out
and try even harder to stomp me out. Working longer hours (or having to work
longer hours) wasn't a display of anything other than me inconveniencing them
and other employees, as now they have to stay late as well. Then right in line
with such accusations, there'd be claims I'm not working enough, am a slacker,
am always late (these Bay Area companies have a "show up and leave whenever
you want" policy, but then magically everyone is always late), etc.

While at Google (2010), there was nothing but crap to work on, then later
there'd be statements along the lines of, "you won't really be able to work on
anything until you're a Senior Software Engineer or a Staff Software Engineer,
as it's assumed anyone at the Software Engineer III level or below doesn't
know what they are doing." There's always an excuse or some BS explanation as
they tried to trap everyone into working long painful hours on nothing
special, while dealing with endless BS.

Google was strange. There was overt discrimination based on age (older folks
would complain about it, but then turn around and say the above about younger
ones), gender, ethnicity, school attended, and anything else they could use,
but it's magically never been mentioned publicly. They'd also talk down to QA
Engineers and contractors like they were nothing.

Google was swarming with off-putting, arrogant, anal retentive pricks that
would use everything as an excuse to say the most insulting garbage. It was a
hellish environment in which many were on edge (anxiety) or miserable
(depressed), while working long and hard on an irrelevant part of nothing
special (something that's also magically never been mentioned publicly).

------
Jemmeh
When I look at software dev career boards most of the jobs are for senior
roles. Look at Stack Overflow Careers and Glassdoor, just search "junior" then
search "senior". I searched several major cities and they all had far more
senior roles than junior/entry.

~~~
clifanatic
> most of the jobs are for senior roles.

They mean 3-5 years.

~~~
user5994461
But ignoring the years you've done at other companies that are not hype enough
and any experience that was not in the USA.

------
RantyDave
I'm 45. Become independent and cultivate a reputation for getting shit done.
Any time you want some work you go out for coffee with someone you know and
they will guaranteed have something for you to do. The trick then, obviously,
is to get it done.

------
FrankenPC
47 here. The network of people that I've built up over 25 years is still
there. If I need a job, I just contact one and they just offer it to me. Why?
Because I can do every phase of dev. I can build and maintain the project and
budget. I can interact with the heads of all departments and leave them
feeling warm and fuzzy. I get the job done. Usually ahead of schedule. I'm a
fire and forget developer. If I applied for the run of the mill full stack
position, I'd never make the cut. And I don't care because I never setup my
future to fall into that hole.

------
mcv
I don't recognize this at all. 42, working as freelancer, and I'm regularly
swamped with offers from recruiters. And yes, there is plenty of junk among
them, and most recruiters suck, but I've found plenty of decent contracts
within bicycle distance, and each one paid better than the previous one
(except the current one, but that's because I'm helping a friend build a
game).

This is Netherland, though. The situation could very well be different in
other countries.

------
mikestew
Hi, kids! Oldster here. Y'all really need to quit with the "oh, $DEITY, I'm
looking at the wrong end of 40 and I'll never work again!" Yes, you will.
Yeah, give up that dream of game development (which you should have done
anyway, regardless of age). Some brah with his half-assed "Uber for..." won't
hire you, sure. But there are plenty of places that would love to have someone
that comes in before noon, does the work that needs to be done, and does solid
work, and doesn't spend all day at the foosball table.

It depends a lot on how one defines "dead end", too. You have steady work, it
pays six figures, but it's a CRUD app? Yeah, go whine to the guy in Appalachia
or Detroit. Let me tell you about "dead end": one factory in town, there are
only so many management positions to go around, and when that factory closes
down you're screwed because your skills don't transfer so well that you'll
just pick and move to Seattle where the jobs are. _That 's_ a dead end: you're
going nowhere.

FoxPro dev and not finding work? That's your own fault. Software dev is a dead
end only if you insist on turning down that cul-de-sac, turning off the car,
and throwing the keys into a grassy field.

(As a sidenote, the author just comes across as whiny because he's not treated
as the special snowflake he really is. If you're so insulted by being asked to
do FizzBuzz, then you ought to be able to knock it out in Brainfuck if
required. But maybe you can't, eh, Mr. Hotshot?)

~~~
gozur88
Yeah, there are still jobs.

On the other hand it's going to be harder to land them. My sister, who looks
younger than her mid-30s, was at a job interview wherein the founders told her
they didn't want any "old people", meaning people over 30.

~~~
sharemywin
Age discrimination is illegal. And I wouldn't want to work for the next
Theranos or zenefits anyway.

~~~
gozur88
Personally I think age discrimination laws are dumb. People who don't want to
hire someone my age will find a reason to select younger candidates. I'd
rather have it right there in the job req so I don't waste my time pursuing
opportunities that aren't there.

~~~
sharemywin
I don't know, most of the time it's pretty obvious I stopped being a "ninja"
years ago...

------
wahern
Yes, if you just want to coast. Coasting is certainly a perfectly legitimate
goal, it just doesn't work in this industry.

You have to constantly grow the breadth _and_ depth of your skill set.

Depth because, from a theoretical perspective, change in computer science is
exceptionally slow and incremental. The basic theories and algorithms in the
latest machine learning craze, for example, are not much different from those
of 30 years ago. If you understood the 30-year-old theory, grasping the modern
stuff is much easier. The big enabler has principally been from new hardware.

Breadth because what passes for "skill" today (just like it did yesterday) is
effectively familiarity with tooling and buzzwords. You have to pay attention
to how tooling and best practices evolve. The tools may be inferior and the
best practices not very effective, but the productivity of teams and companies
depends on everybody being on the same page. And even if the tooling and
practices are worse, it won't that bad. (See depth, above; change is slow and
incremental.)

Personally, I took a mid-career break for law school. One of my varied reasons
was because the law is perhaps the last professional domain where age and
experience is still highly valued. Even a 21-year-old hot shot millionaire
would rightly think twice before choosing as his counsel a young top-of-his-
class Stanford graduate over a 70-year-old attorney with 50 years of
experience in battle.

Philosopher-lawyers from Harvard and Stanford don't have particularly good
track records in winning cases. Another reason for my choosing to go to law
school was my confusion about Lawrence Lessig losing his case at SCOTUS
challenging copyright extension. That's when I began to realize that maybe I
(and others, like Lessig) was living in a bubble regarding my understanding
not only of the law effecting my professional life, but the law more
generally.

Plus, I did some of my best coding while going to law school. Nothing feeds
your desire to hack like an extended absence from the grind of programming for
a living. And being immersed in an unrelated body of knowledge seems to
enhance creativity when programming. I immediately returned to San Francisco
after graduating and went back to coding (pay was better, anyhow), but every
penny spent was well worth it. The stress, however, probably shaved years off
my life. Law school is like bootcamp for the mind, but even more harsh and
unsympathetic. My first year was pretty darned close to Paper Chase, including
scenes where the professor chastises students in front of the class, tells
them to get out of his class, etc. If only undergraduate school were like
that. To see some students flunk out their first year only to return to try
again was unexpectedly humbling and inspiring, more so than the sheer terror
of being one of those to flunk out.

~~~
mikestew
_Coasting is certainly a perfectly legitimate goal, it just doesn 't work in
this industry._

Maybe not when you're young, but you can coast just fine as an older software
dev. I'm doing it right now. Now, it might not _look_ like coasting. Sure, I
get pulled in to build test infrastructure from the ground up, prop a build
server to fit the source control flow that a particular team has chosen, can
walk a dev through writing unit test and integrating them into their flow.
Hire some testers and dev with a high percentage of "good fits". Hell, manage
a team if you need me to. Deal with the client in a professional manner
instead of coming across as some basement dweller? All of that before my first
cup of coffee without breaking stride. But _only_ because of years of
experience does it become second nature.

The tech stack? Meh, you've learned a dozen, you've learned them all. That's
the easy part, and when it's not easy I'll go read up. But to me, the truly
hard stuff gets easy after enough years and one can cruise through the non-
tech parts that (to me) are the hardest part of the job. The only thing I
still struggle with is putting up with bullshit in a tactful manner. That gets
harder with each passing year, probably because experience makes it more
obvious and harder to ignore.

~~~
logfromblammo
I had a hard enough time dealing with other people's bullshit when I was 10. I
can't even swallow _my own_ bullshit now. And it seems like more jobs out
there are constantly increasing their ratios of of bullshit filler to useful,
productive work.

But I can't really tell whether it is objectively increasing, or if I am just
getting better at recognizing it.

------
thanks4it
This guy wants a medal for actually breathing air.

