1) I've never heard of,
2) or the needs to incorporate enterprise solution from back in the days (e.g.: form builder, complex enterprise frameworks, etc) doing some enterprise system
In most cases, again this is my anecdote, none of these developers pass the interview.
NodeJS was hot in the last 2 years (thought it has cool down a bit lately) but to me, NodeJS seems to have the risk of becoming one of those X[technology] revolution in which could lead to a negative signal if one has it in one's resume (plus it's a chance for me to grill candidate how good he/she is when it comes to JavaScript idioms, patterns, best-practices, automation-testing because at the moment, I know the majority of developers who put JavaScript on their resume don't actually practice "good hygiene" when it comes to JavaScript while I know for sure the number of Java developers whom I've interviewed before at least could demonstrate a better/solid software engineering skill).
Imagine a want ad for a carpenter: "Home builder wanted. MUST use Makita brand circular saw."
Occasionally I saw ads like that being posted by small game companies/digital marketing companies; they fall under the "fishy/avoid" type of companies.
Luckily the sane/majority of the companies here listed their main preferred technology.
The first is a proliferation of young founders who have no experience and thus no frame of reference to evaluate older developers, so they just pattern match on the new tech they are familiar with. Nothing really to be done about that since convincing twentysomethings (particularly SV funded ones) of their hubris is a sisyphean task, and in any case it leaves talent on the table for those of us who actually know the value of a dollar.
The second, more troubling factor is founders who actually understand the value of experience, but prefer to take advantage of ambitious kids who are willing to work extreme hours for little equity and less salary. All else being equal, it's easier to find strong talent that isn't aware of (or bad at negotiating) their own value at a young age compared to when they get old and jaded.
As slimy as that is, I think it's a somewhat self-correcting problem in that good programmers are still too thin on the ground and startups who pass over old or minority candidates that are actually good will be at a competitive disadvantage. There is certainly a flood of young people going into technology via bootcamps or other means, but my experience so far is that there is a natural and unquantifiable talent component to being a good programmer which can not be solved by education. I firmly believe anyone can learn to program, but only a minority can ever learn to program well. At the moment, I interpret having learned to program before "startups" became a career move as a strong positive signal; chalk one up for the olds!
The individual or even group decision-making (with regards to not just company goals, but to lifestyles and associations) means that things like that end up as a wash. Make it more concrete:
28 year old founder decides to pass on excellent 47 year old programmer. What does that do the founder's life or company? Let's speculate on some possibilities:
- It does nothing, because even though the older developer would have been better, their level of experience wasn't even necessary to do the job well.
- The business winds up marginally less profitable, but still succeeds.
- The business fails, somehow, because at the margin, missing out on hiring that older developer somehow started a chain of events that could have been prevented if said older developer were hired.
In all cases, the founder goes on to find another job, makes plenty of money, is able to surround themselves with the type of people they'd rather be around (people their own age) and never is even aware of any impact on anything. To that person, it was just "didn't hire someone, something happened or didn't, life went on well, and founder was still happy, ultimately."
What I'm saying is that the "disadvantage" and other related theories start sounding like a secular version of Karma; people use them as a way to tell themselves there will be justice (not that you're necessarily doing that, I have no idea), when in truth it's likely there will be none.
You can try to "prevent" the discrimination through your own actions, which is by no means easy (https://medium.com/@spencer_th0mas/dealing-with-ageism-in-te...), but as the article makes clear, even in egregious cases, it's hard to prove or do anything about. Look how long we've had these various kinds of incredibly well-intentioned anti-discrimination laws, and look at the success rates on the suits / how often they're brought. The results are terrible. It's just too hard to prove.
Here's how I think this could possibly play out: Facebook and Google start paying 21-year-old kids $200k directly out of school, startups start paying ridiculous unsustainable salaries based on VC salaries. Savvy founders and hiring managers at other companies realize they can't economically compete for 25-year-old golden boy talent and start looking at other demographics to find the talent. Over time those savvy companies will thrive while the others are crushed by having to pay for inferior talent at inflated prices with bubble-time VC funds.
Obviously this only works if people realize that older and minority talent is getting unduly passed over. And also I don't know how strong this effect will be or whether the existing tidal wave of bias is too overwhelming for such an anti-trend to even register in the marketplace. Whether or not this would even constitute justice goes beyond my thesis (I believe in ethical business, but justice is quite a tall order). Nevertheless, as a hiring manager, I see any market bias that I am aware of as a competitive advantage to me, and I'm convinced that effect is real no matter how small.
