>What makes you say that? I would certainly disagree.
Just by your description of why you are into programming. Your description sounds like the many I've heard from other (male) programmers over the years. The point is that you didn't need any other incentive to try it out, and whatever distasteful stereotypes that may exist didn't deter you. Therefore, you fit in with the typical profile of someone who got into programming (perhaps a better way to put it).
>Not me. I'm not in the HN bubble
I'd say you're in it more than most, judging by your submission history. Just reading it on a semi-frequent basis will alter your perception of what is typical in this field. One doesn't have to go to meetups or conferences to be influenced by this place.
>And that's why I said you can't become even a decent programmer without being pretty damn into it.
Of course, this depends on what you consider "decent", which is undoubtedly influenced by the ideas that float around HN and the bubble. The point about supreme levels of talent was to draw a contrast with the typical ideas that are taken for granted here. What you consider "good" I would consider supreme levels of talent/passion/motivation when judging the field as a whole.
> Just by your description of why you are into programming.
Ahh, I said why I GOT into it. I never said anything about even being into programming any more (cuz I'm not).
Are there good programmers who don't get a thrill out of beating the computer when it's throwing bug after bug? Because bug hunting is a huge part of development and it requires a special kind of perversity to enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, you hate most of what you do. If you hate most of what you do, you are not going to be very good at it, unless you have a different but equally special kind of perversity. And you have to be diligent about debugging to be a decent programmer. If your code doesn't work, it's pointless to call it code.
> I'd say you're in it more than most, judging by your submission history
You do realize that something like 80% of my submissions are my own blog or my husband's? I'm here for self-promotion, baby, to reach those who haven't yet drunk the koolaid. My blog is essentially the antithesis of the HN belief system. Example:
And my husband mostly writes about how arguments over programming styles are retarded, for which he gets a lot of flack.
> Just reading it on a semi-frequent basis will alter your perception of what is typical in this field.
No, being involved in it -- believing it -- buying it will. But I'm not, and I don't.
> Of course, this depends on what you consider "decent", which is undoubtedly influenced by the ideas that float around HN and the bubble.
I don't read tech blogs. I don't read technical posts on HN. It'd be an epic waste of my time. But I've worked with lots of crappy programmers.
> What you consider "good" I would consider supreme levels of talent
How do you know what I consider good?
You're projecting all kinds of opinions on me that you have no business. For example: our main source of income is running on Rails 2.x… because it serves our customers, and that's our priority. We don't follow TDD because extremes are pointless. Etc. I don't care unless it benefits (or costs) our customers. Bet you didn't know that.
You seem to think we're engaged in some kind of debate, but the "debate" is nothing but you telling me (and HN) how I am. But, newsflash: I'm a person, not some kind of phantom you can make believe, think, and do anything you want.
Jesus Christ, you're a piece of work. I was relaying my impression from your words and other signals. If my impression was wrong, then so be it. Your hostility is completely unnecessary and just serves to further degrade the conversation around here. If this place is purely for self-promotion, perhaps you should take extra care to follow the rules and assume good faith as this exchange has been an extremely poor reflection of you.
> but then again you already fit in with the "mainstream" programming culture/environment
> I'd say you're in [the HN bubble] more than most
> What you consider "good" I would consider supreme levels of talent
I get that I'm a very interesting topic. But it's a mystery to me how you consider it "hostile" of me to point out that you are making statements about me that have no basis in fact.
Probably you consider me hostile because you, as part of the HN bubble, don't know how to react politely when being questioned. And, as part of the HN bubble, what you consider to be a reasonable argument, I consider a bizarre ad hominem remark.
Just by your description of why you are into programming. Your description sounds like the many I've heard from other (male) programmers over the years. The point is that you didn't need any other incentive to try it out, and whatever distasteful stereotypes that may exist didn't deter you. Therefore, you fit in with the typical profile of someone who got into programming (perhaps a better way to put it).
>Not me. I'm not in the HN bubble
I'd say you're in it more than most, judging by your submission history. Just reading it on a semi-frequent basis will alter your perception of what is typical in this field. One doesn't have to go to meetups or conferences to be influenced by this place.
>And that's why I said you can't become even a decent programmer without being pretty damn into it.
Of course, this depends on what you consider "decent", which is undoubtedly influenced by the ideas that float around HN and the bubble. The point about supreme levels of talent was to draw a contrast with the typical ideas that are taken for granted here. What you consider "good" I would consider supreme levels of talent/passion/motivation when judging the field as a whole.