[gliese1337]

23, programming for, what, 14 years, maybe? And I hope I still have as much fun when I'm 57. I can certainly imagine myself doing so, for much the same reasons; it is partially about the happy dance feeling when something I built works, but long-term happiness and satisfaction come from seeing it getting used. It's really, really cool to see someone's masters thesis and think "I helped make that!" or drive by an elementary school and thing "they're using my stuff!" I may not be writing the same kinds of programs for the rest of my life, but I hope I don't ever get tired of writing useful software.

[Wintamute]

I think it makes more sense to start measuring from the time you started professionally programming ... so if the 57 year old parent has been programming for 33 years that suggests that he's measuring from when he left full time education (24). My apologies if you've been coding professionally since you were 9 though :)

[fooandbarify]

I wouldn't put it past gliese1337. I turned 24 yesterday, and I can honestly tell clients that I've been programming professionally for over a decade. (Obviously, my abilities/standards have changed since then, and so have my rates... hopefully that trend will continue!)

[robryan]

I picked up a few jobs online around that same age, 13-15. I don't think I really had enough drive to start picking up better jobs or taking on follow up work for the clients.

Was a better time in a way, not really needing money I was actually more happy just doing my own stuff and helping out with sites online I was interested in.

[mkramlich]

disagree. I have it on good authority that education begins from around year 0. And the folks that begin learning how computers work, and programming, at say age 10 are generally going to be much better off, and better hires, than folks that don't begin that step until age 18 or 22 or what have you. Getting a paycheck doesn't inherently teach you anything more about CS or engineering or development practices. It's just money. Having a job means you do get exposed to a lot more stuff around programming, like politics, bureaucracy, personalities, management, corporate shenanigans, methodologies, clients, customers, etc. Yes maybe even more exposure to certain technical things you might not have had exposure to it. But its more shit than shine.

[Wintamute]

My point is that if you go into your first job interview from college and say that you have 15 years experience then that's going to count against you because for right or wrong the question you're being asked is how many years have you been working in a professional work environment. By all means convince them of your passion, and explain that you've been doing awesome things with computers since forever. But "work experience" and "time from first exposure to computing" are two totally different things. Aside from that I agree with every thing you said.

[gliese1337]

Good point, but I'm not really sure how to judge that. I've been getting paid for it for about 5 years, but that doesn't encompass all the stuff that I've built that other people have found useful, which is the metric that I care about. So, 8-ish, maybe?

Anyway, the point is that I don't have 33 years under my belt, so maybe I'm wrong about how I'll feel in the future, but based on the experience I do have, I just don't imagine it ever getting old.

[Wintamute]

Yeah totally agree. I've got about 8 years under my belt (first proper coding job in '04 and I'm 32 now, notwithstanding a lifetime tinkering with computers though). Still loving it and learning new things every day, hope it stays that way :) I guess the point I was trying to make is the metric people expect to hear, especially in a work environment is years of experience in the Industry (capital "I") getting paid. I don't dispute that you have a internal metric too, which is awesome. I guess you have to compare like with like though.

[mkramlich]

I've concluded that the "years of work in [industry|<tech>]" meme is a fuzzy, noisy, unreliable and (close to) meaningless metric. Note I said "(close to) meaningless", because it is not completely. It makes the classic error of making an apples-to-oranges comparison. For example, too many people talk about "5 years of Java" as if they were talking about a 5 meter long pole. If pole lengths were measured in the same way as "years of Java", and you went to buy 10 different poles from different stores, each "5 years of Java" in length, you are going to be in for a nasty surprise. Humans are not commodities like a pole, brick or gallon of water can be.