I don't think your age is so important, instead this bit could be; I think the reasons you kept programming as a hobby only are the most relevant for the discussion. Was the pay too low compared to your current job? Was it too hard to interview in you area ? Was it a question of starting with 0 professional experience ? Or wasn't it just in your priorities to try to land a programming job ?

At any age you'll be able to switch fields. But did the reasons you didn't do so until now became somewhat irrelevant ?

Instead of being 59 you will be 49? I don't think it will help. Instead, put a spin on it and sell yourself as experienced in technical matters.

I think that people vastly overestimate ageism in the software industry. And experienced engineers are far more valuable than someone who is just starting out. In the worst case, if the industry looks very different in 10 years and your prospect aren't that great, you can move to project management or some other management position at that point instead of settling for it now.

Get a developer job if that's what you prefer to do; I think that you're overestimating the downsides of choosing that option.

32 here, but most of my professional circle is my age or older.

Programming is not Logan's Run and outside of maybe bold and snappy SV startups companies cannot afford to sneer at experienced professionals wanting to join - not in the current market at least.

My advice would be to talk to your superiors about this - perhaps they would be willing to put you into a coding role? If not, you can start sending out resumes and having interviews - it's not like you have to be jobless to make time for that.

Perhaps you have friends from previous college/pervious companies, who could help?

My experience is that switching roles is generally hard and will take time - you'll need to take that into account.

But it's not impossible and I have anecdata to support it.

As someone who started coding at age 9, I agree. :-)

It's not about hiring someone in their 40s per se, but rather about recognizing the value of 20 years' experience. Age alone doesn't impart wisdom.

What will happen in 10 years? Who knows? Things change a lot in 10 years and your perspective on things will change too. I think you may be overly stressed about ageism (keyword being "overly"). All of these young engineers will hit their 30s/40s/50s/60s too and the age group distribution will reflect that in the years to come. I'm in my 40s and most engineers I socialize with are my age or older. None have any intentions of becoming managers. Keep a level head on HN, the attitude here is very SV focused and doesn't necessarily provide an accurate depiction of the overall industry.

I did that at 45 and landed an interesting job at FAANG (and I'm not the only one). I think it's a bit contradictory to think old programmers are still as capable and sharp as 25 years old, and at the same time insisting to be judged on different standards.

Unfortunately this isn't really unexpected. Between inexperienced kids with nothing to lose, ambitious graduates with strong short term experience, and experienced programmers specializing in one area it's hard to be competitive solely based on experience. The programming profession is very "free", but that also means you have to manage your own career and make sure that you're "selling" something that is relevant for the "buyer".

From an industry perspective the blondy is right. When you're in your mid-thirties you're expected to either to progress in your career to a role with greater responsibility, have an established career at larger companies or sell your services on the open market as a consultant/freelancer. Basically something that is using your experience. Anything else might not only not be competitive, but also a red flag.

This doesn't mean you aren't eligible for a job, just that it will be harder to find one.

(And I know that all this might sound arrogant which is why people won't really tell people how it is)

Are you a Rubyist, or a developer?

> As I get older and more expensive, I need to be better than the 3 year experience 26 year old colleague. And if not better at least not noticeably worse.

Yeah, I had this line of thinking. I don't recommend it. I eventually realized I don't want to play the same game as people who are willing to throw away more than I am. Specifically, I don't want to be in positions that companies would be asking those types of questions. Younger devs will work longer, not have families, work for cheaper, and be more compliant.

So I decided I'd focus my career in the following way: no more web dev. I chose compilers and systems programming to self-study. It's been fantastic. Along the way, I learned Haskell and Rust, contributing a bit to both communities, and having a lot of fun. Eventually, I started finding my way towards seeing more jobs that were in my wheelhouse, and landing some.

> there are so many other worthy things a person can do with his time other than learning a new programming language (both within programming and outside programming), we shouldn't judge people by their passion or lack of passion for learning new languages.

Agree. But if you want to pivot your career, don't wait for your employer to sponsor you in doing so.

Heh, I feel that way and I'm 22. Unfortunately the only language I know is JavaScript and the stuff I am interested in and learning isn't quite there yet in terms of jobs.

I understood his argument, despite what your condescending comment suggests, I just reject the premise it's built on. His premise is that in 8-10 years of experience you will be "max-level-programmer" and after that point there's not much worth learning, and you're a depreciating asset and you should parlay your experience into something else.

The ageism in the tech field should bother everyone, because you too are one day going to be old.

Could a 30 year old give good advice on being a programmer?

It's not the length of time, it's the amount of experience.

Why exactly is this? And why would anyone go into a profession where they will be unable to find work when they are half way through, and at the peak of their powers? In every other intellectual enterprise--doctors and lawyers particularly--they hit their peak earning years just as software developers because (supposedly) unemployable.

This makes little to no sense. It isn't like good older developers become magically incapable of learning new langauges or frameworks. It isn't as if they become less reliable than a 20-something just out of school. It isn't as if they suddenly forget 25 years of history that lets them make more accurate effort estimates than anyone else.

So where does this perception that developers must be young come from, and why does anyone go into a profession that by definition (apparently) is going to require the to change feilds mid-career?

I thought that when I was 17, and I was proven laughably wrong when I started university and learnt how to program properly.

Then once again I thought I was pretty good at programming and went in to industry - and once again I found my skills were nowhere near as good as I thought them to be.

My advice is to put aside notions that you are good and always be looking to improve and learn.

> but generally people aren't willing to hire a 17-year-old

Who needs to know that you're 17? If you have a good enough portfolio it will speak for itself.

This may seems strange from where you sit but trust me. If you stay in the field that length of time, you will probably become that guy. You don't need to set out to be him. The only thing it requires is time and a refusal to stagnate.

Fuck. That made anxious. I am close to that age.

Also, my middle manager friends are having much harder time finding a job than programmer types. Don't know if its just them or if its a trend.

While you are right, i believe he is also right saying he can't leverage the last 10 years. His experience will be useful, but when applying to positions this won't make a difference. Companies hiring developers look for a very precise set of skills (This lang+That Lang+This DB+That pattern+etc...) and while his last 10 years might be a plus in particular cases, most of recruiters will just ignore them (especially if they are from the HR team).

Maybe it's bias. But I know for myself that the older I get, the less time I have to spend on staying relevant. Mobile revolution? Never bothered to learn. Super fancy new JavaScript? Took me years to start looking into. Go? Ugh, don't wanna. Etc.

Ten years ago I was chomping at the bit to jump on any new technology that started showing signs of promise. Nowadays I focus on just solving people's business problems and printing money. Tech is a tool, not a goal.

This already makes my resume look a lot less shiny to keyword matching recruiters. The fact that I'm old/cynical enough to say "expected value of options is 0" makes me all but unemployable.

This has always been the case. In the 1980s, when I was in my 20s, this was the deal, and very well known to all of us in university. Nothing new. One was too old after 35-years-old, UNLESS you were some amazingly great programmer, of course. Obviously. I remember having many conversations about this topic. And this was the case way back then, when the whole industry was young.

That being said, there's always room for older programmers. Maybe it is not quite as easy, but there's a lot of room. Maybe you won't get the Google, Facebook type of jobs, but the government sewer district, or an auto parts store with 20 stores would hire you. So it might not be the glamor of a high-end company.

I'm a lot older than you but I can move from company to company pretty easily, because I guess I have more experience - not on the technical side, but on the political savvy side. Office politics. Knowing how to find the back doors.

However, this is not about that. You hate the tech field, so none of that matters.

I personally have gone from industry to industry, different types of jobs. I have a huge and massive source of skill sets.

I know that many say that being a "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" is bad but I've never felt that way. Sure, I won't make the huge bucks by being a neurosurgeon making $2 million per year, but then again, even if I did try to do that, I still would never be able to be a neurosurgeon (or leetcoder) anyways. So the point is moot. And I'm not really a jack-of-all-trades, more like a "near master of a shitload of trades." That's how I see it, anyways. And, I LIKE being a "jack/near-master-of-all-trades" so why does it matter if I am not a superstar master? I don't want to do that.

So what I am saying is that it is possible to move from one industry, from one trade, to another.

I've done programming, sales, insurance, ran a sports school, worked as a high-level bookkeeper/financial person, ran multiple companies of my own, worked in retail (I really like it and dealing with the public, unlike most people). I've also worked in a number of other specialized niche fields that I don't want to say as it might doxx me. Over the last year I learned a boatload about SEO/SEM/Social media/digital marketing. I did this for others, but now I'm going to start creating websites of my own and use that knowledge to create my own websites.

I do what I want to do. Sometimes it takes me 3 or 6 months to figure out my next move when it is time to move on.

I am just showing you that it is more than possible. I've done it tons of times. And what one man, or woman, can do, so can another.

But the question is, what do you want to do?

As far as your existing work history, of course you have to include it. But you always want to skew your resume to the job you are applying to, as much as possible.

So if you are going to do technical writing as your next thing, you then change your resume to say how you wrote reports, or manuals, or instructions and that was the favorite part of what you are doing as a front end web designer, and other things like that. If you decide to, oh, work in a hotel industry in the administrative department, maybe you created a website for a hotel and were intrigued by it and want to work in that industry now. Just make it link up, that's easy to do. It's totall random association.

.

If you can go to any kind of meetings in person, if you can find any, that is the best case. You never know who you will meet. I went to a computer security even earlier this year and met the CIO of a Fortune 100 company and spent 3 hours talking with him. He had 10,000 technical people working for him, and here I was talking to him. He offered me a job, but I didn't want one.

I've been to so many in-person meetings and if you put yourself out there and talk to people, you will find commonalities. So maybe you decide to work in commercial real estate and want to get into landscaping. So you just start attending commercial real estate assocation meetings and boom, you have a job without having to jump through hoops by applying through their website if you impress them. Maybe still apply through a website but it is a formality.

>Appreciate any guidance, thanks.

What do you want to do? Can't help you until you know that.