I would object to someone applying them to me, because I am not fundamentally a programmer or an actor. But it's a perfectly cromulent way to use words! I'm no

I would object to someone applying them to me, because I am not fundamentally a programmer or an actor. But it's a perfectly cromulent way to use words! I'm not objecting to the turn of phrase at all. My point is just that I draw this distinction (between “an Xer” and “a person who Xes”) when describing people, and I think it's a useful nuance. I don't know whether the writer (and the word somehow loses its special significance after the definite article — I'm not saying it's logical; it's just how my mind reads these things) consciously chose “worker” rather than “hobbyist” or “busy person”. But I think it shows how they see the (abstract) people they're describing. It made me realise that, yes, this advice is useful, but perhaps only to people who “are workers” rather than “do work”. And I agree completely that in this context, “a programmer” or “a worker” is precisely what you need — you don't need a person, you need a function.