The firms that claim to do that almost invariably do not hire people with 20 years of experience, they hire people with 2 years of experience 10 times over. Sometimes that's fine. Usually it's not.
Being employed as a programmer may or may not gain you new experience (which is what matters if you are to be a good generalist). Whether it does depends on whether you are _doing things new to you_ while being employed.
Also, all concepts are “made up”. By definition.
Sorry, no. Those concepts are unrelated to what we're describing.
> Also, all concepts are “made up”. By definition.
I was trying to be polite. Made up by you and nonsensical, is the more accurate phrasing. Respectfully. But I'll be stopping here. Enjoy the day!
No they aren’t. They’re literally the subject of the conversation before you joined it.
Often the long-term guys I met are the shit guys who are coasting, still writing code as if it were 2005.
Worse still is when their language knowledge has coalesced around an old language version and they're not using any of the new stuff, as I've seen code bases that are entirely incompatible with new libraries.
Like all new libraries generally depend on DI, but all the code is written in static methods and classes so nothing can be easily injected and you get all sorts of threading issues when you try.
Also, I get what you’re saying, but DI was around in 2005 and some good engineers (older than I) were using it back then. It seems lot of good ideas skipped a generation!
The pool for experienced senior level talent won't grow unless _someone_ spends the resources to hire and train juniors.
The incentive being that they can keep the best juniors for themselves and let the others back into the pool for others.