[pm90]

Except that they call it experience for a reason. I know of 2 kinds of people: one who keep doing the same things over and over again and don't learn new skills; and the other who constantly improve over what they know currently. The latter builds up the kind of experience that is immensely helpful in many technologies, and deserve the higher salaries.

I suspect a lot of companies try to save money on the short term by hiring inexperienced developers and then have to deal with the long term pains of supporting that code.

[vonmoltke]

A lot of companies also try to save money in the short term by hiring experienced people from the first group who happen to align with whatever their stack is today. Then they whine and bitch about "older developers" when they try to change the stack three months later and this person can't keep up.

[0x49]

I would be wondering why a company is completely changing their stack after 3 months. Im in my late 30s and 9/10 times, my experience is that its for the wrong reasons.

Older and more experienced devs have a hard time seeing poor decision after poor decision being made and just following the path to failure.

Why? Weve seen it too many times and also have seen too many companies go under as a result.

[vonmoltke]

I almost said "three weeks", but decided to back off on the hyperbole.

Yes, resistance to "flavor of the week" stack changes is definitely something that would turn poorly-managed companies off experienced devs. Companies still tend to be short-sighted on their experience requirements, though.

[pm90]

A company is only as good as its leaders. When the senior engineer in the team is knowledgeable and trusted by others in the team, it is a lot more likely that such futile efforts will not be undertaken.