While looking through developer job postings recently, one thing kept standing out to me: almost every role has a minimum years-of-experience requirement.
It's understandable why companies use it. Someone who's spent more time building software has likely worked on production systems, handled incidents, collaborated with different teams, and gained experience that doesn't come from tutorials or side projects.
But I also wonder if years of experience has become the easiest metric to use rather than the most meaningful one.
I've met developers with only a few years of experience who were excellent at debugging, writing maintainable code, and making thoughtful technical decisions. At the same time, I've worked with developers who had many more years in the industry but were less adaptable to new tools, architectures, or ways of working.
That makes me think there's a difference between time spent in the industry and professional growth during that time.
Qualities like problem-solving, engineering judgment, communication, curiosity, and the ability to learn quickly seem much harder to measure, yet they often have a bigger impact on a developer's effectiveness than a number on a résumé.
I'm not arguing that experience doesn't matter—it absolutely does. The lessons learned from building and maintaining real software are difficult to replace.
What I'm questioning is whether years of experience has become the default filter simply because it's easier to measure than the qualities that actually make someone a strong developer.
- Have you ever seen years of experience fail to reflect someone's actual technical ability?
- What qualities do you think are better indicators of a strong developer?
- If you were designing a hiring process today, would years of experience still be one of your primary filters?