That's fair. I have no problem with someone taking pride in their work, what I take issue with is the sort of level of pride someone like _why seemed to expect

That's fair. I have no problem with someone taking pride in their work, what I take issue with is the sort of level of pride someone like _why seemed to expect to garner. A local furniture maker will certainly take pride in a piece he's built, and his customer will rightly enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with this, let's call it "small-scale pride" or "contentment". Part of the motivation for such work is, beyond selling the furniture, probably some amount of joy in the craft itself--I think you'll find this joy pairs often with "small-scale pride" or contentment. If you read _why's motivations for disappearing, however, his desires seem of a grander order. He writes about wanting to produce something that really lasts, and theres undercurrents of these products needing to be recognized widely and celebrated, even beyond the creator's lifetime. This is the sort of pride I meant in my first comment. I think it's foolish to chase this sort of highly external motivation and desire, particularly in the realm of programming, (it'd be similar, say, to wanting to acquire renown as a legendary accountant). What I'm getting at is a sort of confusion between art and utility. _why seemed to want an artist's glory for what will always be a utility. Sure, when we are programming and get into a "flow" state, we may feel transcendent, and enthusiasts may be able to have a deep appreciation for the work of others, but the general public, or mankind as a whole will never appreciate the products of programming (software) in the same way they do art. Furthermore, the part of the discipline that one could argue has some amount of aesthetics to it--writing "beautiful" source code (elegantly expressing in a language)--is not even a primary part of the end result (which is the software itself)[1], so it has even less of a chance of really being appreciated by anyone beyond specialists. I think this confusion, this ambition for glory, is what's foolish. Quite frankly it's a distraction in any field and usually a sign that you're pursuing something for the wrong reasons. I have no problem with someone taking pride in good work--it's this sort of ambition for a legacy in software that I find silly. Like anything else it's possible, but I feel it's a particularly hard thing to realize in the world of software--of course, it does happen, but even the majority of legends in computing that reach beyond the sphere of computing (which is partly what _why seemed to want on my reading) (e.g. Gates, Jobs, Stallman (even this is a stretch)--many computer scientists where the "general public" recognition factor quickly drops off) primarily are not known for programming. [1]: Compare it with reading. One reads a book, in which the material of the work (the words) contribute directly to the aesthetic experiences of the work and which the reader directly engages with on consumption of the work. The aesthetic experience of the program is totally divorced from the consumption of the software, which of course may have its own, separate aesthetic dimension.