You cut out part of my full statement which entirely changes the meaning ;) Here it is in context: > So I guess John Carmack is inferior and is not an ultimat

You cut out part of my full statement which entirely changes the meaning ;) Here it is in context: > So I guess John Carmack is inferior and is not an ultimate craftsman. I didn't realize that their are statistics on what constitutes a craftsman. But I'm willing to change my mind. I'm very curious what those statistics measure though. Edit: Not to mention like peteradio pointed out, what does a statistically superior programmer look like and where do those statistics live?