It helps to have actual real life experience under your belt when making such claims. You seem to be parroting what countless rants have already repeated without much content.
The GP didn't have much content either, merely listing off other obsessively backwards compatible things. Your reply might be suitable in a formal debate setting (as would "fallacy!" claims be suitable when challenging faulty deductive logic) but this isn't a debate, it's a conversation. The source of one's claims doesn't matter, you only know they're probably not from experience because the Parent was kind enough to share their age. The claims are used to drive the conversation and establish a shared context for further conversation (or at least ranting about the shape of our industry), not to debate.
Also reading the hard-won experience of others is much more efficient than trying to get it yourself. Books are wonderful. With enough books you can advance beyond the authors without having to tread the same paths, you parrot their findings as a base for your own. Or another case, you can at least be aware of common pitfalls your senior coworkers are constantly falling into because of an aversion to reading. Why do you know the pitfall is there? You're just parroting back what a book said. That doesn't make it untrue, or not useful to know, or not useful to share with other people, or even not useful to bring up to show there's a shared context.
Given, I'm fairly weak in assembler (I've been learning), so I may not be the most reliable resource: GP has a point about my lack of experience, just not for the reason they think they do.
But fair enough.
Maybe I do need to do more research. Maybe I need to try new things.
I like to think I don't senselessly parrot, but that doesn't mean that I'm right.