I think the hacker / painter connection is a bit overstated, partially due to the entanglement of a couple separate points. One of the major parallels that PG draws between hacking and painting is that some languages (most notably Lisp, though it's just as true of Forth and Smalltalk, as well as newer languages like Python, Ruby, OCaml, Haskell, etc.) are very flexible and well-suited to iterative development, and that this completely changes the character of programming with them. Similarly, he describes the difference between painting with tempera vs. sketching and oil paints, which allow more experimentation and changes in plan. (I'm not a painter, so I'm taking this at face value.)
While this is a useful analogy, it doesn't really say anything specifically unique to hackers and painters, vs. other creative types in general; it's more a statement about how working with malleable mediums affects the creative process. Many of his points about painting could be easily adapted to other creative pursuits: Hacking and cooking * , hacking and composing, hacking and writing, etc. His points fit most strongly when relating hacking to other "maker" fields, in a general sense. Due to his background, he refers to "Hackers and Painters", but the connection seems tenuous in writing. (Also, not many people actually paint, so the examples may not be very accessible.) Consequently, some people have missed his underlying point (that hacking is a creative thing, not something purely theoretical and logical) and, for example, dismissed his references to painting as an attempt to rub off some its glamor on programming. Hackers and Makers would be a better fit for his message.
* For example, consider the difference between making a stir-fry, with all its chopping required in advance, to a stew that can be progressively tasted, maybe have a dash more pepper or tomato added, let it simmer longer, etc.
While this is a useful analogy, it doesn't really say anything specifically unique to hackers and painters, vs. other creative types in general; it's more a statement about how working with malleable mediums affects the creative process. Many of his points about painting could be easily adapted to other creative pursuits: Hacking and cooking * , hacking and composing, hacking and writing, etc. His points fit most strongly when relating hacking to other "maker" fields, in a general sense. Due to his background, he refers to "Hackers and Painters", but the connection seems tenuous in writing. (Also, not many people actually paint, so the examples may not be very accessible.) Consequently, some people have missed his underlying point (that hacking is a creative thing, not something purely theoretical and logical) and, for example, dismissed his references to painting as an attempt to rub off some its glamor on programming. Hackers and Makers would be a better fit for his message.
* For example, consider the difference between making a stir-fry, with all its chopping required in advance, to a stew that can be progressively tasted, maybe have a dash more pepper or tomato added, let it simmer longer, etc.