rndrnd

I think a lot of this disappointment at 40 comes from the fact that a lot of kids (especially in the US) were told silly things like "you are special" and "you can become anything you want to become". So a lot of boys grew up with the idea that they were going to be Richard Feynman + Bill Gates + Wayne Gretzky rolled into one. When that didn't pan out, they didn't understand what happened to them. Nothing happened - you were born human.

This whole "you're special" thing wasn't always here, it's a relatively new thing.

In terms of what can be done, this recent thread on ageism might help: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9361580

I didn't mean for my comment to be condescending - sorry about that.

I was a computer programmer from 20 to 21 (I worked full time in college), and I changed fields at 21. I am in my 30s now. I didn't figure out these dynamics by myself - I was fortunate that my manager at the time was also changing fields, and he explained these things to me. He was in his early 30s and he became a doctor.

Now I am just trying to return the favor by describing these things to younger people on HN. And I read HN for kicks. :)

Look, I agree with your suggestions. But each of the things you suggest (improve yourself, become full stack, maintain mental elasticity) falls in the category "try harder". That only works with things you can control.

There are also things you cannot control - changes to your brain as you get older, the kinds of jobs that are available, what other computer programmers specialize in. These are your odds.

Your success is a function of your efforts and your odds. Success = f(try harder, your odds). Since you are human, you can choose your path, and it doesn't make sense to choose a path where the odds decline so dramatically as you get to 46 ... 58 ... 63 ...

I don't really have advice, but I know there is a very large number of people in their 40s looking to change careers so probably there are many common pathways, internet discussion forums about different professions, etc.

Same for people in the 30s. For example, in the lower ranked medical schools in this country (US), there are many former programmers in their 30s, and they discuss things on boards like http://www.oldpremeds.org/phpBB3/

Remember the comparison is not between 47 yo with experience vs 22 yo with no experience. It's 47 yo vs 32 yo - both have experience.

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!

Well, different intellectual fields have different experience curves.

Accounting, medicine, law all have much longer experience curves. Accounting also has significant barriers to entry (though not as high as medicine). Law has lower barriers to entry and you can see them facing a wave of unemployed lawyers and closing law schools right about now. Etc ...