3 ms·
The point is that Carmack's work was extremely influential. That wouldn't have been true if he wasn't technically great, but technically great work can fail to
by binary132 3y ago
The point is that Carmack's work was extremely influential. That wouldn't have been true if he wasn't technically great, but technically great work can fail to have any influence whatsoever. Which is greater?
- dev_0 3y ago[dead]
- programjames 3y agoYou keep repeating the same idea: they're a great programmer because they're influential. You seem to be missing the point everyone else is trying to make: being a great programmer has nothing to do with being influential. Lisp is a great programming language, yet very few people use it. C++ and Javascript? Practically viruses, but every browser relies on them. Yes, it's true that many great programmers are also highly influential. But Linus was a git (his word, not mine). He isn't influential because of soft skills, it's because he was already a great programmer.
- binary132 3y agoLisp was and still is extremely influential. I didn't say anything about soft skills either. Leadership can be highly technical.