| > As a young person my biggest concern with hiring old people is that exact attitude: this is just like $IRRELEVANT_OLD_TECH. Leaving aside the (substantial) ageism issues here, it looks to me like your reading of the GP's complaint is incorrect. It's not a judgment that $NEW_TECH is going to not catch on or otherwise fail because it's just like $NOW_IRRELEVANT_OLD_TECH. It's the observation that much of the $NEW_TECH that catches on and succeeds for a time often turns out to offer approximately the same utility as $NOW_IRRELEVANT_OLD_TECH... and similar adoption costs, which we pay over and over again. We rent rather than buy. There are counterexamples I can think of -- new tools/abstractions/practices I've adopted that have resulted in near order-of-magnitude gains. But the ratio of these to other $NEW_TECH that just sort of shuffles the dirt around... well, that probably approaches another order-of-magnitude relationship. And there's also the argument about the aggregation of marginal gains (see Brailsford and the British cycling team); approximately the same utility isn't quite the same thing as exactly the same utility and I don't think that should be overlooked. In fact, I think one could put together a specific case that the GP is arguably not correct in making an even comparison between Powerbuilder and webapps on precisely such a basis. Still, an aggregation of marginal gains approach only ends up helpful if the marginal and opportunity costs are low. How often do you find that's true for $NEW_TECH over $NOW_IRRELEVANT_OLD_TECH? And since we're being free with judgments about age here (generalizations, naturally -- not that you or I would ever let such general thinking affect our judgment when it comes to individuals)... do most young developers really have enough knowledge and experience to answer that question effectively? |
Further, most people seem to have little appreciation of the difference between order-of-magnitude gains and shuffling the dirt around. Certainly, there are those who are wrong in assuming anything new is just dirt-shuffling, but for anyone without experience, everything offers an order of magnitude. And this really is an engineering discipline---$NEW_TECH is never as good as its proponents say, but it the best trade off in some circumstances, while $OLD_TECH is never as bad (or good) as the "general consensus" would have you believe, while it is almost certainly inappropriate under some scenarios.