I don’t buy this article in the same way others here seem to be doing. It sounds like the author is a little too… in love with himself? He’s entrenched in a certain mindset where he’s the “enthusiast developer” and others are lesser, while trying to empathize with his lessers as if to say “well, you know, your way of working is ok too!” It’s the image of admonishing his old way of thinking, but he hasn’t abandoned or renounced that way of thinking, he’s just lamenting it. All of the arguments presented are colored by this personal bias.
I wish I could break down every part of the article that I take issue with, but just to illustrate my problem, here’s some side-by-side quotes where I think undermines the author’s own points:
Once I introduced the word “generation” to my thinking, it became easier to make sense of many contentious, unresolved issues in tech that flared up over the past decade by looking at them through the lens of intergenerational conflict.
If you allow for the possibility we’re undergoing a generational change, maybe this debate over “passion” is evidence that the assumption that most programmers will always be passionate about programming was mistaken and counter-productive.
If you were hoping to bridge the gap between two different kinds of developers, where you see yourself squarely on one side, then calling your relationship with the other side a “conflict” is not going to win over any friends.
The most intelligent people I have ever met (and I’ve met some really, really smart people) were also the least likely to brag about their own intelligence. They simply had no need to self-massage their own egos.
I didn’t read it as lamenting the demise of the tinkerer. But it can of course be read that way too.
I guess many people find themselves in the article. I, for one, spent way too many nights building “under construction” web sites on Geocities. However, I definitely don’t think “passion” has anything to do with what we do (Searls also makes fun of being passionate about passion). I don’t find that to be a sustainable approach. I don’t care if a candidate I’m interviewing has personal projects in Github or a Raspberry Pi at home. Those are interesting, sure, but no more than playing the guitar or swimming.
Again, maybe the article was not well balanced. And maybe the fact that I find myself in the article prevents me from seeing it.
I don’t buy this article in the same way others here seem to be doing. It sounds like the author is a little too… in love with himself? He’s entrenched in a certain mindset where he’s the “enthusiast developer” and others are lesser, while trying to empathize with his lessers as if to say “well, you know, your way of working is ok too!” It’s the image of admonishing his old way of thinking, but he hasn’t abandoned or renounced that way of thinking, he’s just lamenting it. All of the arguments presented are colored by this personal bias.
I wish I could break down every part of the article that I take issue with, but just to illustrate my problem, here’s some side-by-side quotes where I think undermines the author’s own points:
If you were hoping to bridge the gap between two different kinds of developers, where you see yourself squarely on one side, then calling your relationship with the other side a “conflict” is not going to win over any friends.
My feeling exactly. The article gives me the same kind of vibe: Look at me! I am special.
He’s writing it explicitly in the title “What makes me special.” He is a good example of “I am very smart” while saying nothing interesting.
The most intelligent people I have ever met (and I’ve met some really, really smart people) were also the least likely to brag about their own intelligence. They simply had no need to self-massage their own egos.
That’s certainly not this guy.
I didn’t read it as lamenting the demise of the tinkerer. But it can of course be read that way too.
I guess many people find themselves in the article. I, for one, spent way too many nights building “under construction” web sites on Geocities. However, I definitely don’t think “passion” has anything to do with what we do (Searls also makes fun of being passionate about passion). I don’t find that to be a sustainable approach. I don’t care if a candidate I’m interviewing has personal projects in Github or a Raspberry Pi at home. Those are interesting, sure, but no more than playing the guitar or swimming.
Again, maybe the article was not well balanced. And maybe the fact that I find myself in the article prevents me from seeing it.