I care about quality output, pure and simple. Productivity in our technology stack is what I'm looking for in candidates. I've encountered basically two types of programmers who are 50+ (my guess on their age, based on resume dates).
Those who (still) possess that curiosity to learn and the drive to create. They may not be completely current with every late-breaking technology (show me anyone who really does, for that matter), but they embrace change and strive for improvement. They are the ones that make you forget about age -- young, old or somewhere in between.
And then there are those who seem like they walked in with their high-school letterman's jacket on, hanging on something they did years and years ago -- and having trouble transitioning to today's world.
While many people associate those 50 and older as "seniors", not everyone maintains senior-level status in this business. As we all age, we would do well to remember to rely on our natural instincts for curiosity and learning to keep the fires stoked and remain relevant in an industry that will continue to change for years to come.
I hope you remember there age, or more specifically what comes with serious experience, when they e.g. look at the symptoms of a bug and say "It's going to be there" (in the code) and are right more often than not. That's something I achieved in C/C++, but only after, say, a decade and a half of working with them. (And this does translate to newer stuff where no one can have that much experience, although of course not as well).
Or take architecture. I know I've done a good job there when mine solves problems I didn't consciously anticipate. Again, that took nearly 2 decades from when I first started programming including a lot of reading on good software design, starting in that first year of programming ('77-8) and never stopping. Heck, the older you are, the more time you've had to read and grok the classics.
Hmmm, to finish with a riff on some other observations in this discussion, the normal, average outcome of a startup is failure. Perhaps one should consider non-normal approaches to staffing, like recruiting one or more grey-beards of the right sort who can save you days, weeks, even man-months of effort on individual things because of their experience. To paraphrase Scott Adams, sometimes you have the option of working harder or smarter. The latter frequently wins.
Those who (still) possess that curiosity to learn and the drive to create. They may not be completely current with every late-breaking technology (show me anyone who really does, for that matter), but they embrace change and strive for improvement. They are the ones that make you forget about age -- young, old or somewhere in between.
And then there are those who seem like they walked in with their high-school letterman's jacket on, hanging on something they did years and years ago -- and having trouble transitioning to today's world.
While many people associate those 50 and older as "seniors", not everyone maintains senior-level status in this business. As we all age, we would do well to remember to rely on our natural instincts for curiosity and learning to keep the fires stoked and remain relevant in an industry that will continue to change for years to come.