I really don't follow this well, the argument seems to be: - programming is described as a craft, a kind of skill - actual crafts involve humility, rather tha

I really don't follow this well, the argument seems to be: - programming is described as a craft, a kind of skill - actual crafts involve humility, rather than performative skill-showing - real craft cares about the result/product, than good tooling and use of tools - no one cares too much about the tools themselves - hence no one should care about prog-lang which is just a tool There are a few leaps in this logic I wonder if I missed something: 1) the basis of the argument is the description of software as a craft; but rather than discover what is meant by this, the author instead injects their own definition of "craft" - then instead of stating "programming is not a craft", they instead title the post something different based on an inference one or two steps removed from the original premise. 2) the tangent about "performative" distracts, I think, from what the beef is. 3) a prog-lang isn't a craft, really, nor is it like woodworking, or pottery, or factory lines, or house building, or being a ninja, or whatever other things devs like to describe themselves as. There may be aspects similar to those things, but in all those metaphors you have to pay attention to the point the metaphor is making rather than riff of the comparison on you own; ultimately devs compare programming to X to make some point, not because programming is actually like X in general 4) a prog-lang is a tool in an abstract sense; in a less abstract sense it is a language, hence the name. It makes as much sense to compare Java to the convention of calling a certain type of tool a "gouge", as it does to compare Java to the physical gouge itself. 5) woodworkers do bicker about tooling. and especially about finishes.