That is the basis of the assumption of 40 as a boundary as well, isn't it? I don't think most people really believe there is some biological limit of 40 for programming, but more an apparent shelf-life for your run of the mill programming career. This all strikes me as a specific case of the more general character of any ~20 year or "generational" endeavor.
You experience phases of intellectual and social stimulation, and your response is probably somewhat stereotyped as a normally functioning human. I think it is a bit more acute if you are also doing this in a cohort with many of your peers in the same phase at the same time. Things like the "hype cycle" are observations about these effects in a population or market as a whole, but are rooted in the similar experience of the individual participant.
So, I might rephrase it as: you should give some thought to subsequent phases of your life, and not expect this one to go on indefinitely. There will be changes. The only choice is whether you attempt to steer the changes and/or mitigate the challenges that might be beyond your control...
You don’t seem to understand how ageism works. The limit is “you look old,” whether that’s in person, or because you have 20 years of work experience on your resume. Think “overqualified,” or “not a culture fit.”
It isn’t rational like you seem to think. If I were 40 and thought I could have a 15 year career in software, I wouldn’t be worried, either.
You might be right. I am ~45 years old and have been doing R&D programming for about ~25 years. I have known strong performers of all ages, and seen attrition happen at all ages as well.
I did go through some FANG type interviewing about 10 years ago, ending without an offer. I don't think they rejected me for being ~35, but I imagine they may have decided there wasn't a "cultural fit". There was something a little Lord of the Flies about the experience, which I might have grossly summarized at the time as having been interviewed by a bunch of little kids. I didn't resent this, so much as think I had dodged a bullet.
> There was something a little Lord of the Flies about the experience, which I might have grossly summarized at the time as having been interviewed by a bunch of little kids. I didn't resent this, so much as think I had dodged a bullet.
I recently had a similar experience at Cruise Automation. Of my 4 interviewers, none had been with the company more than a year, and at least two looked like they were in their 20s. The younger interviewers were the ones doing "coding" interviews, rather than system design, and their questions were straight up pulled from leetcode.com.
Apparently, I "struggled" in one interview, because I was only able to answer one question and part of the second one. What I actually struggled with was trying to prove that the algorithm I was using was optimal, which seemed important at the time.
C'est la vie. I later heard from some fairly reliable sources that the place was kind of a shit show, so I also feel like I dodged a bullet or two there.
You experience phases of intellectual and social stimulation, and your response is probably somewhat stereotyped as a normally functioning human. I think it is a bit more acute if you are also doing this in a cohort with many of your peers in the same phase at the same time. Things like the "hype cycle" are observations about these effects in a population or market as a whole, but are rooted in the similar experience of the individual participant.
So, I might rephrase it as: you should give some thought to subsequent phases of your life, and not expect this one to go on indefinitely. There will be changes. The only choice is whether you attempt to steer the changes and/or mitigate the challenges that might be beyond your control...