[ChuckMcM]

"When I say "older" developer, I mean the 40-50 year old who probably was a really good developer 10 years ago, got a steady, cushy job, with a salary that he/she is more than happy with, and stopped learning because he didn't need to anymore."

Which I'd agree with, but that eviscerates your thesis about the new mind training regimen does it not? After all the learning engaged developer missed out on the training you got from social media.

I think everyone here knows 'bad' developers, I was astonished at the number of people who I knew responded to the question "Why computer science?" with "I hear it pays well."[1] I suspect those folks stop being developers as quickly as they can and move into management (since it has a higher pay cap). So whether you are 20 something and programming by 'cut-n-paste' or 40 something and 'retired-in-grade'

It's wrong to generalize, and it's often a prelude to discrimination to generalize an opinion based on race, color. religion, sex, or age.

I'd love to get better tools and insights into developer productivity. I think it could be a useful differentiating factor on a source code control system.

[1] This contrasts with the people who respond "What? They'll pay me to do this? Cool."

[dusklight]

In reference to your comment on discrimination.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Reading my original post, I think you are right I should have qualified myself better. I was just really upset by the tone of the OP. IMO the reason why many older developers are worse than younger developers is because they THINK they are better than the younger developers. They don't have the hunger to improve themselves anymore, and so they don't.

[ChuckMcM]

Personally, if Paul does a 'greatest hits' list for his essays I would vote to include that one in the list. I'm interested in your reference to it though, can you say more about how it relates to this discussion?

Are you suggesting that discrimination is one of the 'fashions' that Paul refers to?

Its statements liks this:

"IMO the reason why many older developers are worse than younger developers is because they THINK they are better than the younger developers."

Which causes me to wonder. We could certainly debate the results of a study that polled a few thousand developers between the ages of 20 and 60 and asked them to self evaluate themselves with developers older, the same age, or younger than them. Except we don't have that study, do you know of one ?

Paul's essay is a good one on open mindedness, and it gives great examples of how people can over-turn or distance themselves group-think by seeking out the unthinkable.

I certainly cannot claim to know what you are thinking but it reads like you think that labelling older developers as lazy, self-deluded, parasites is an example of giving voice to something that is 'true' but 'unsayable' because of some sense of societal impropriety.

I can't really comment on whether or not its 'true' because I've not seen any process where that question has been analyzed. The data from the Stack Overflow study says that people who self-report as older on Stack Overflow give more answers and have higher karma as a result. I didn't see anything in the data that would support a conclusion that these folks are making value judgements about their younger peers or that they no longer wish to improve.

"I was just really upset by the tone of the OP."

Paul wrote in his essay:

"The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous. The irony of Galileo's situation was that he got in trouble for repeating Copernicus's ideas. Copernicus himself didn't."

I guess I'm trying to figure out is what you're trying to say. Are you threatened by the idea that someone "older" who has more experience than you is probably "better" than you are by some definition? Or are you trying to argue that your youth and mad social skillz has permanently elevated you above the skill set of people who came before you?

I'm not critical of either view, I'm just trying to understand the data that leads to it. I liked the analysis of the Stack Overflow answers because it was data + analysis. As someone who is always looking to hire top talent, understanding effectiveness is something that helps me do my job better.

[dusklight]

I am saying that the older programmers who are downvoting me are feeling nervous.

"I didn't see anything in the data that would support a conclusion that these folks are making value judgements about their younger peers or that they no longer wish to improve."

That's not from the report, just my personal unhappiness bubbling up. I entered the workforce expecting to learn how to be a better programmer from my more experienced co-workers. It was a bit traumatic to realize that they didn't even understand basic things like why using a hashmap is better than a nested for-loop or why one of the basic OOP principles is "favor composition over inheritance."

Since you mention data so much, I am curious, have you ever read "Fool of Randomness" by Nassim Taleb?

[ChuckMcM]

"I am saying that the older programmers who are downvoting me are feeling nervous."

That is an interesting conclusion.

"Since you mention data so much, I am curious, have you ever read "Fool of Randomness" by Nassim Taleb?"

No, however many folks have suggest that Gladwell's article on him [1] covered all the bases in the book. So I did take a moment to read that article.

I think he brought a fascinating perspective to stock trading and I found his discipline in removing confirmational bias from his observations seems to work for him. Since you brought it up, have you read the book?

It seemed from Gladwell's article, that Nassim would make the argument, in this context, that age and experience don't matter in the quality of the designs and implementations, rather some folks will simply arrive independently at a more optimum answer for any given problem than others.

Gladwell states that Nassim is/was a quant focused on the derivative system (the stock market) in which randomness appears to dominate. I have not read the book but Nathan Berg (UTexas) takes this a bit further by showing that 1/N diversification wins (see the article 'Simple Heresy', by Bruce Bower, Science News, 4-Jun-2011, pp 26-29). It read like a pretty solid endorsement of Nassim's take on the behavior of markets.

What I did not get out of Gladwell's article was that Nassim was promoting an 'ignore all data' philosophy. It sounds like you've come to a different conclusion than I did about what constitutes a useful experimental result.

If it helps I'm sorry you've had to deal with some less than helpful people in your career so far.

[1] http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm

[dusklight]

I really urge you to read the book, the first half is a bit slow, but the second half I couldn't put down.

Here's a more succinct way to get (one of) his points across:

http://xkcd.com/605/

My emotional outburst is certainly non-scientific, and should not be taken seriously. But it is equally non-scientific to be blinded by data. A good example would be to reward your programmers based on how many lines of code they check in -- you will find yourself regretting that quite quickly.