3 ms·

I think the general point the article is trying to make is valid, which is that you should not stress yourself out trying to be a rockstar coder. Being good eno

I think the general point the article is trying to make is valid, which is that you should not stress yourself out trying to be a rockstar coder. Being good enough to achieve what you want to achieve is sufficient.

jay_kyburz 10y ago
Yes, but I think it walks dangerously close to suggesting you can be a good programmer without talent or passion. Which is obviously not true. You'll never be really good at anything you don't care about.
- somestag 10y ago
  > You'll never be really good at anything you don't care about. Depends on your definition of "care." If by care you mean find interesting or enjoyable, then I have to disagree with you. I'd say most people are very good at at least one thing they don't care about simply because they need to do it for some reason. I have neither talent nor passion for mental math, for example, but I'm quite good at it (relative to the average person, at least) simply because I need to do it every day for my job/hobbies. If by care you mean find it worth doing, then you're right, but then it's just circular reasoning--no one does anything without, on some level, finding it worth doing, so clearly you can't be good at something without doing it. You could say I care about mental math in the sense that otherwise I'd just refuse to do it, but that goes without saying. I'm pretty sure the OP is about the first definition here, not the second. It shouldn't be controversial that human beings are capable of learning things (and learning them well) that they're not naturally inclined to do nor are they particularly interested in.