|
|
|
|
|
by rndrnd
4084 days ago
|
|
Like the parent tried to explain, different fields (programming, law, medicine, etc) have different experience curves. There is definitely enough in programming to learn for 200 years, if we lived that long. It's just that when programming in area E, a 47 yo who learned A, B, C, D, and E does not have an advantage over a 32 yo who learned B, D, and E. But the 32 yo has the advantage of his youth. I also don't get all the "I'm 30 and I'm doing ok" statements. The article is about issues you'll experience when you're 45 .. 49 .. 55 .. 59 .. 63 .. etc. Edit: let me do an easy computation for you. Time from age 22 to age 32 = 10 years. Time from age 22 to age 67 = 45 years. Big difference! |
|
Then maybe task E is not the right task for the 47 year old? Maybe when building another accounting system it's enough to know all about accounting systems, but the closer you get to the cutting edge the more useful broad knowledge gets.
For example there is just about nobody with 5 years of experience in VR-technology, but if you have worked in a number of even slightly related fields in the last 20 years you probably can bring a lot to the table.