[jillesvangurp]

I think the metric used to be every five years. If that's gone up to every two years that would be interesting. Do you have some sources for this? Five years is bad enough btw.

But in the end you get what you pay for in this industry. Programming jobs pay pretty well of course, which is because there is both scarcity and a lot of demand for them. Experience is even more scarce and not all companies are willing to pay for it. But mostly the issue is really companies trying to do things on unrealistic budgets with people that aren't necessarily very good at what they do.

I'm actually turning 50 in a few months. I recently got to work with people that are actually older than me, which is very unusual for me. Usually I'm the oldest in the room and at this point old enough to be some people's daddy even. I worked with a few interns 30 years younger than me recently, for example.

Mostly I actually prefer working with young people over older people in my teams. More mental agility and less set in their ways. I actually hate that in myself when I catch myself. Mostly older doesn't necessarily mean wiser.

I disagree with the calls for regulation here btw. The issue is not with engineers but with their employers not willing to pay for them to do better. There are plenty of certifications, security reviews, etc. that you can pay for. The issue is companies not doing that, skipping it, or treating it as a box ticking exercise and generally not taking it seriously. This stuff doesn't necessarily lead to good engineering decisions. Most banks are a good example of lots of ass coverage in that form combined with lots of technical debt. They buy plausible deniability, not better engineering.

[mmooss]

> I disagree with the calls for regulation here btw. The issue is not with engineers but with their employers not willing to pay for them to do better.

Wouldn't regulations compel the employers to pay for better quality? I thought that was the most common need for and benefit of regulations.