Hacker News Reader

Comment by marktangotango | Hacker News Reader

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+.

View on HN

Can confirm. Also, I suspect a lot of this "there's no life after 40" stuff mainly relates to startups and certain small companies. It certainly doesn't apply to BigCorps.

I suspect this is true. I hear the "middle-aged programmers aren't employable" story a lot on the internet, but in the large organization where I work I, in my mid-20s, am conspicuously very junior. Most of my coworkers are middle-aged, most of the program management are getting into their '50s, as you might expect of someone in a role seen as senior.

but how many people who are middle age try to "enter" the industry and succeed? I can answer that for you: those who have close friends in power who wish to hire them. As you age yourself, you may see this if you are sensitive to it. We need to separate the two groups, because thrre are two issues here. 1.aging programmers already working in the industry and 2.those who are accomplished in another dying field who decided to/had the good fortune to be able to reeducate themselves in a new field for them--programming. It's the second group that have trouble even getting an interview, and when they do, are often passed up for a younger "junior dev" who is not as skilled. I realize I can only speak to what I've seen here in NYC, but I keep seeing it, and I see it a lot. So are we going to acknowledge it? i hope so. I hope we can find a way to allow people to change paths in life when their path ends, if they are humble and willing to work hard. That is the kind of society I'd like to foster.

Skepticism of bootcamps (and other non traditional paths) is not the same thing as agism. This industry is further along in figuring out the former than others, but you're right that it has further to go. It's just not the same as agism, though.

You are correct, of course. But when someone over 40 has a much deeper understanding of programming in several languages, a CS degree, AND experience from 2 bootcamps, AND at teaching (in 2 bootcamps, at a University, and with private clients) AND has coding experience at a school, with private clients, and one's own side projects in several languages- a linguistics blog, journalism and technical writing experience, and they are then turned down for a junior technical writing role at a company where the tech writers can't code at the same level, I don't know... it is hard to say what that is, isn't it? But yes, I completely understand skepticism of the breadth and depth of the skills of those whose ONLY experience of programming was at a bootcamp. And when that same company makes a mistake in their own assessment (which you politely point out after you are told you are incorrect in your technical writing), and when that same company hires someone with virtually no experience in any of these things as its next writer hire and also for its manager of technical writing, and while those two employees are in their 20s...what would you think? Am I excluding a possible interpretation? "Culture fit"? The candidate we speak of doesn't fit the expected cultural profile in several areas for a tech company. Might it be that in some other form? It is just really tough to say. I realize it stinks to see how blatant ageism can be. It makes all of us feel unsettled for our own futures-- it is also just stupid and embarrassing in an industry that prides itself on being so smart. But we have to get real about it. We also have to get real about sexism and racism. It seems to take more than a village (of women at Google, Uber, Tessla, etc.) shouting it out with lawsuits and news articles. We have not even begun to handle race issues in tech, perhaps because so few can break through. We need to face these things and stop trying to explain them away with coded words like "culture fit" or "updated skills" (when the skills are updated, of course). We need to look around our departments and seriously ask if there was ever a new hire over 40. Then, we can dig into these issues. We have to stop knee-jerk dismissing the stories of those who are shafted by these practices. Yes, it is uncomfortable.

I work at a mid-sized B2B telecom (just over 500 employees), and looking at the ages of my coworkers, we have more 30+ people than not, and there is a very large contingent of 40+ and even some 50+ people here.

It's definitely the kind of company you want to work at if you're middle-aged.

> Most of my coworkers are middle-aged, most of the program management are getting into their '50s

List this firm please, it might help someone.

Actually, we all need to grapple with the fact that big corporations are behaving more and more like startups because they can. If Google has a higher standard (as has been reported by Google SWEs who perform interviews at Google right here on HN) for entering SWEs based on their age, then we need to take a hard look at that. Yeah, it's illegal and unfair, but no one over 40 and really over 35 is allowed to be a great "junior dev" - they are only comfortable w over 35 who have been in the industry. The ladder is pulled up at most places for even excellently skilled beginners after 35. One should be able to enter if one has skill at a higher level, but we all need to face that the level one must hit at 35+, as a woman, as a person in any underrepresented category in this industry is much higher than it is for those who are a good "culture fit".

Yes, you make good points. A distinction should be made between junior 35+ people and 35+ people with at least a decade of experience.

But I don't think that's exclusively a software engineering issue. If I tried to become an electrician at 40, my guess is I'd encounter some bias, though probably less than in software.

One other thing: by "BigCorps", I'm referring to things like banks, Wal-Mart and so forth, not technology companies like eg Google.

> One other thing: by "BigCorps", I'm referring to things like banks, Wal-Mart and so forth, not technology companies like eg Google.

Yeah, I'd much rather work at a traditional conservative BigCorp than a Silicon Valley company that never grew up from startup mentality.

If you do want to stay I tech, I'd recommend looking at the B2B telecom sector. It's far, far more conservative then any other part of the tech industry. They're the only tech companies that I've seen ban T-shirts in the office.

I'd say this is a great tip for a candidate who isn't underrepresented in tech. I just came from an interview at a conservative midwest company that isn't technically a "tech" company but has a huge tech dept. Got to the end of 5 interviews at breakneck speed and with lots of acclaim from the team about my speed and competence...that is until they saw me. Everyone, and I mean everyone in the engineering dept., save one woman (she must be a 20Xer) was firmly within the typical tech demographic. I felt I did quite well despite suddenly being asked CTO-type questions. I was told there would be whiteboard algorithms and questions about the company itself. They knew I'd never worked at a big company with a giant code base before, and yet they were enthusiastic about my ability to contribute-- it had come up and was not an issue. They wanted to fly me out and put me up in a hotel. It turned out I didn't need it because I happened to be there, but they offered. They even talked to me about salary numbers. When I got to the on-site, I got questions more fitting for a candidate with many years' experience with a giant code base at a big company. Still, I felt I answered well. In the end, they told me I didn't answer those questions quickly enough (not correctly enough-- just quickly enough). I'm fairly certain that If I were given the chance to actually work at a large company, I'd know the answers to these system design issues without having to think to arrive at the correct answer. I'd know from experience. If I'd looked like more of a "culture fit" let's say, but still over 40, I think it might have been fine. By the way, the city that this company is in is 82% African American. Its tech department was 0% African American.

I was under the impression that these sorts of BigCorps were actually a better place for the underrepresented and frequently have more diverse technical workforces (along race/age/gender lines).

I just got hired by one in Texas that reflects that impression, which I had before I ever interviewed there.

That is good to know. I think Austin shows promise in this way.

I'm working in a B2B telecom and I haven't seen that level of conservativeness, although in general I agree that they are conservative. But it's a wonderful place to work in many aspects: it's stable, pays well, and in general less clients means less headaches and a more focused development.

They don't immediately adopt new technologies, but frankly, nowadays I see that as more as a feature than a bug (although once in a blue moon I wish the delay in finally adopting them, when they have been successfully proven themselves, wasn't so long).

The most glaringly conservative aspect of my current job is its very rigid adherence to process. Again I must say that, having worked in places where it wasn't the case, I'm so glad that process is followed strictly.

The big problem with this job is that I've acquired a ton of domain knowledge that probably won't be useful in another job. This means that I need to keep other tech skills (algorithms, programming languages...) much more finely honed. On the other hand, I've acquired top notch documentation skills.

EDIT: I also can confirm that there is plenty of >40yo people here. Definitely a good place to be when you reach that age, although I'm only in my eearly thirties. I've found also a high level of diversity in general, which is very, very good.

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.

http://matt.might.net/articles/best-programming-languages/

"I don't think Java is all that bad, and I can enjoy well-done object-oriented programming."

This is probably the most accurate opinion of Java the language I've seen, one that isn't tarnished by what anyone has seen in any proprietary codebase.

I would rather program in Java the programming language than Javascript any day of the year, even if I dislike the vast majority of popular Java frameworks like Spring, Hibernate, etc.

Yes, I should have made it clear that Java the language is not inherently terrible. And the JVM itself is really quite nifty. It is unfortunately the infection of Java codebases (literally all of them I have seen with the sole exception of short Processing sketches made for graphical effects) with a mindset of design patterns as lego bricks used to build applications. Java did have a rough start though, there was clearly an edict at Sun to invent a nomenclature which deviated from any terminology commonly used by Microsoft which operated only to its detriment.

I think the JVM itself will be Java's saving grace - languages like Scala and even Clojure now are gaining huge popularity that not only leverage the JVM and existing ecosystem but have the ability to rapidly advance and abandon Java's warts. So it's not like COBOL in that regard. Because of the power of the JVM ecosystem I think even Java's glacial pace of adopting new features will be enough to keep up for many years or even decades to come.

Spotted the one who's never written cobol (or jcl).

You are correct that I have never written COBOL (or JCL for that matter), though I'm not sure why what I said would indicate such a thing. I have seen COBOL and working COBOL systems. They are absurdly verbose. That feels like a hyperbolic understatement, really. Everything is very structured, in the nature of micromanagement in organizations, formed in that way in order to intentionally forbid flexibility. Is the COBOL I have seen 'old fashioned' perhaps? It was well over a decade ago, closer to 2, since I've looked at any. Perhaps there is a 'lightweight' COBOL?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com