3 ms·

> Programming is difficult because people are profiting from the "difficultability" of it That's backwards. Not "anyone" can program computers. Anyone can try,

> Programming is difficult because people are profiting from the "difficultability" of it That's backwards. Not "anyone" can program computers. Anyone can try, but most will fail. Just like "anyone" can "do math" or "do chemistry" or "do anything", but most will fail. The reason programming is lucrative, whether as an employee or entrepeneur exploiting programmers' labor (or supplying their own technical labor), is exactly because not everybody can program well enough to meet a market need. It's a curious thing, this misplaced, or in some cases faux-humility about programming, or any other academic/intellectual endeavour. It dovetails very well with certain business interests who would love for nothing more than programming to be as commoditized as, say, janitorial work is. These interests are definitely getting their wish in some areas (e.g. web/mobile development).

invalidOrTaken 13y ago
>It's a curious thing, this misplaced, or in some cases faux-humility about programming, or any other academic/intellectual endeavour. Programming rewards the rational, and compilers and bugs have no sense of survival that would make them relent in the face of intimidation. So programmers deal with compilers and computers on their terms: the unfailingly rational. Humans are not computers. Humans do respond to intimidation---or rather, they respond to relative intimidation. Programmers are carrying tweezers in the fencing societies that corporations are.
supersystem 13y ago
I see programming mostly as janitorial work. Why? Because it's mostly complex rather than hard. Of course "real programmers" are upset with RoR jockeys when it turns out businesses pay for delivered value rather than technical complexity.
- Iftheshoefits 13y ago
  Janitorial work isn't "complex" in any way that approximates programming--even the programming that "RoR jockeys" do. If the two were on the same level of complexity, "RoR jockeys" wouldn't be paid as well as they are. And, yes "real programmers" earn more than "RoR jockeys," because what "real programmers" do is both more complex and harder. But I think calling them "RoR jockeys" or implying they aren't "real programmers" is both wrong and juvenile. Otherwise I don't think you've written anything that conflicts substantially with what I wrote.

invalidOrTaken 13y ago

>It's a curious thing, this misplaced, or in some cases faux-humility about programming, or any other academic/intellectual endeavour. Programming rewards the rational, and compilers and bugs have no sense of survival that would make them relent in the face of intimidation. So programmers deal with compilers and computers on their terms: the unfailingly rational. Humans are not computers. Humans do respond to intimidation---or rather, they respond to relative intimidation. Programmers are carrying tweezers in the fencing societies that corporations are.

supersystem 13y ago

I see programming mostly as janitorial work. Why? Because it's mostly complex rather than hard. Of course "real programmers" are upset with RoR jockeys when it turns out businesses pay for delivered value rather than technical complexity.

Iftheshoefits 13y ago
Janitorial work isn't "complex" in any way that approximates programming--even the programming that "RoR jockeys" do. If the two were on the same level of complexity, "RoR jockeys" wouldn't be paid as well as they are. And, yes "real programmers" earn more than "RoR jockeys," because what "real programmers" do is both more complex and harder. But I think calling them "RoR jockeys" or implying they aren't "real programmers" is both wrong and juvenile. Otherwise I don't think you've written anything that conflicts substantially with what I wrote.