I disagree. There's a huge confusion between the movement as a whole, and the movement at the individual level. What exactly is stupid: the fact that some peop

I disagree. There's a huge confusion between the movement as a whole, and the movement at the individual level. What exactly is stupid: the fact that some people sell bullshit seminars about a new fancy programming paradigma or the fact that some people try to improve themselves by looking at the new tools out there? Movements are just the inevitable by-product of an underlying phenomenon: people are attracted to the next shiny things. Note that I said "people", not just Hackers/Programmers. Actually, a lot of the hype around the new tools does not come just from the Programmers, but is carried by management as buzzwords. But complaining about "movement" misses the point. Those who currently wrap these concepts around layers of bullshit in order to sell books and certifications are not going to stop doing it anytime soon. Should we stop buying the books? Well that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As the OP said, there often is a kernel of truth in these new methods, and although it is annoying for us to have to skim through all that noise, I don't think that ignoring everything new is the right thing to do. "...very little of what I've learned that's genuinely important wasn't known about and written about before I was even born." The problem here is to know what is genuinely important. I guess the only thing that's genuinely important is what makes a turing machine: the rest is just some extra layers. But detail matters a lot. The reason why there are so many different languages / paradigmas is because different tools are more adapted to different problems. I'm not a big fan of OOP, and I never use it ... unless I think that it is absolutely obvious that objects are the right thing to do (which is pretty rare).