I believe this label is less likely to apply to an older programmer if instead of grumbling they were willing or able to clearly communicate problems and consequences of “new” solutions. They would be labeled “old wizards” instead :)
There's some truth to that, but I don't think better communication would really change anything, beyond a few minor victories here and there.
So much of the fetishization of everything "new" comes from a combination of wishful thinking and mental laziness. Especially in larger organizations where decisions are made far from where the work is actually done, there is a tendency to think we can solve problems simply by embracing the newest management fad, enterprise software, etc. It's kind of like the way people think they can get organized "if only they had the right trendy organizer or todo app".
I get the impulse, we desperately want to believe that our hard problems can easily be solved by just changing one thing or buying something. This is the crux of most modern marketing, in fact. Unhappy happy with something hard, just by product or service X.
Older workers tend to know better than others that hard things are hard and that layering some shiny new tool or framework on top of crappy process or a broken business model will not change anything. But saying that out loud, even tactfully, is a very inconvenient truth that will make most managers resent you, and probably label you "resistant to change".
They do. It's the nature of new programmers to be prone to hype and marketing and not understand those "clearly communicated problems and consequences" as anything but grumbling.
In my experience more often than not, the people the people that accuse others of unclear communication are making an effort into not understanding the message.
But then, I'm not known for fighting against new solutions either, so that experience is probably in a disjoint population. Anyway, I imagine you say that from the position of an "old wizard", but that position is as dependent on a receptive audience as it is on a communicative "wizard".
They’re grumbling because they’ve been there done that, too — tried to communicate the ills of frivolous changes — and nobody was interested in paying attention.
I think we are on the same page that communications are a two-way street. There must be mutual desire to listen carefully and to speak clearly.
My comment above focuses on what the stoics advised to focus on - the things one is in control of changing. In our case, old wizards could control their attitude.
IF there is a lot of churn you will need to do a lot of communicating, but obviously some times the new will succeed, as time goes by with all the churn and all the poor decisions you would get glum at the prospect at communicating yet again why you think a new solution is not preferable.
I don't actually care though, just I can see this possibility.
