Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
The programmer as (starving) artist
Share
Print
CommentsI've spoken and written enough about free software for audiences unfamiliar with the concept that I've probably heard and answered this question at least 1000 times. The stock answer goes like this:
Most software isn't the shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf stuff sold at your local computer retailer, but custom programs written (or highly customized) for commercial users. Think of software as a service, not a product, and you will see how it is easy to make a living writing software even if underlying programs like operating systems and middleware are developed by programing cooperatives and given away, free of charge.
Then we go on to talk about how so-and-so makes a good living doing custom Apache installations or setting up ecommerce Web sites based on free software. There are plenty of people and companies making money with free software one way or another. (We write about some of them on NewsForge from time to time, as regular readers well know.)
But when you trot out this line of thinking in front of a group whose members have spent most of their working lives writing or selling proprietary software, they tend to be skeptical. When they listen to a free software advocate, what they hear inside their heads goes like this:
Bye-bye, software sales
Bye-bye, sweet success
Hello, emptiness
I think I'm going to cry
Bye bye, my money, goodbye
This may sound like a parody of an old Everly Brothers song, but there is some truth to the thought, especially if you start comparing programmers to artists. Or songwriters.
Most musicians never make a living at it
I've written and played a few songs. My friend Matt Rothenberg, an online editor for Ziff Davis, also writes and plays a little music. Note that neither of us writes music for a living; we cover IT industry news, which is fun most of the time but certainly isn't as glamorous as being a songwriter.
Are we "good enough" to be full-time, professional musicians? Probably -- if we were willing to practice like mad and tour and put up with all the indignities faced by aspiring musicians. But we obviously have other ways to earn our livings, so music has become something we do purely out of love.
Note that we still make music. The fact that we don't do it for a living means that we don't make as much music as we would if we did it full-time, but removal of financial pressure also means that we are free to write the songs we want, when we want, instead of coming up with enough material to fill an album on a record company's schedule, and this means the songs we do write are probably better than ones we would write for purely commercial purposes.
Free software is often created the same way: On the creator's schedule, with the same level of inspiration behind it. But we don't necessarily think about software as art, since it is a new art compared to sculpture, music or poetry.
Until very recently the market demand for anyone who could write semi-coherent code was growing so fast that almost anyone who took a couple of programming classes could earn a living in the computer field. Now computer literacy is widespread enough, and basic programming tools have gotten easy enough to use, that the ability "to write a program" is no longer in short supply, and with the Internet at our fingertips we all have the combined output of the whole world's supply of programming talent available to us, not just programmers in our own city, state or country.
You can trace art and music's current ubiquity in our lives -- and the fact that nowadays only a few "stars" make a good living in either field -- to the development of technologies that allow easy duplication and distribution. And, without question, software is easier to distribute worldwide -- at virtually no cost -- than either music or visual arts.
Star programmers will still make money
The pattern in many arts-oriented fields is that the top people get big money while everyone else scrapes by. You might say this is already happening in the software business, with Bill Gates and 100 other top earners (who are not necessarily developers themselves) taking in more than 10,000 (possibly even 100,000) "average" software developers. Indeed, I think many people are drawn to the software industry, including some with no noticeable talent for it, because they believe it can make them rich. And since the world is not necessarily fair, some of the no-talents probably will accumulate wealth from their software activities -- which may be marketing rather than programming -- while developers who do truly innovative work may be forced to work at RadioShack to make ends meet.
You, of course, will be a star, right?
I was born in Los Angeles, surrounded by people who had come there to be movie stars. Every one of them was certain that, with the right break, he or she would be a major box office draw. Some of them managed to maintain this optimism though their entire adult lives, even if the only movie parts they ever got were tiny, and they earned most of their living waiting tables or selling mutual funds.
Surely you've heard people tell musicians who have more hope than talent, "Don't quit your day job." We may start hearing that phrase thrown at programmers. The reality is, in any field where only 1 out of 100 makes it big, 99 won't.
Is free software to blame?
This is a question Steve Ballmer would probably answer "Yes!" and Richard Stallman would answer "No!"
Personally, I believe the most insidious effect of free software is that it puts development tools into the hands of people who might not otherwise be able to afford them, thereby increasing the number of potential programmers. If it takes $20,000 worth of hardware and specialized software to program for a particular operating system or language, obviously there won't be as many programmers working with that operating system or language as with ones that can be obtained for free.
From a software user's viewpoint, the more competition we have, the better. Commercial software writers and marketers, like people in any business, would like to have less competition, not more, and they certainly don't like competition from people who are willing to give software away for free.
"But isn't 90% of all software custom-created for business or government use?" you ask.
Yes, it is. But companies that now charge high prices by writing a piece of custom software for one business, then write a nearly identical piece of custom software for another -- and sell it for as much as the first piece -- are going to have trouble competing in a software world where anyone can use base packages for free and modify them to meet a customer's requirements for far less than the cost of a custom, proprietary package. Suddenly the game of charging for a custom package that is really a modification of work the software vendor has already done for another client is over.
In the commercial/government software marketplace, where even most COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software is modified heavily for each customer, free software's popularity is growing rapidly, and the "software as service" business model will inevitably displace the current, "Sell them a software license, then charge for customization and support," sales track. There is no reason to buy a cow if the milk is free, but the cow must still be fed and milked, and the milk must still be put into containers and transported to market.
Customization and support are the programming equivalent of commercial art; not glamorous or necessarily creative, but okay for putting food on the table while you work on your personal projects at night. This is work a "99 out of 100" programmer can do. Indeed, a superstar might not be as good at it as someone who is merely competent and plugs away day after day, displaying reliability rather than brilliance.
Still, as computers spread through the world -- and we're talking the whole world, including African countries where the average income is now less than $500 per year -- the competition for customization and support work is going to be fierce.
Note that the competition for graphic design and journalism jobs isn't as great as the competition to become a famous artist or novelist, but it's still a lot harder to get a paying job in these fields than to become an accountant or recreational vehicle salesperson.
I keep reading statistics that say U.S. colleges turn out more journalism graduates every year than the total number of jobs in the field. We may be moving in this direction with computer science -- and just as in journalism, this won't deter those who truly love the work and will do it for nothing, after hours, if they can't find a job in the area where their passion lies.
Writing software is fascinating, even somewhat addictive. People in the writing business are familiar with the phenomenon of "compulsive writers" who write not for money but because that's what they do. I am a compulsive writer. I earn my living as a reporter and editor now, but I wrote heavily even when I didn't, and I'd keep writing even if I went back to driving a limousine for the bulk of my income. I am not unusual in this "writing as compulsion" personality quirk. Look at all those Weblogs out there!
The free software movement is full of compulsive programmers. I have watched Miguel de Icaza -- to name one -- program furiously during conference sessions and on airplanes. The code he writes at any given moment seems to depend on his mood and personal itch-scratching. Enough of his output is commercially viable that he's helped create a software company -- Ximian -- that is now part of Novell, so he is earning a living based on his programming talents, but I'm sure Miguel would write code even if he was doing something else for a living, as would most other dedicated free software people.
Free software is an effect, not a cause
The American Visionary Art Museum (AVAM) in Baltimore, Maryland, is dedicated to "outsider art" created by people who don't conform to mainstream art standards or have any formal art training but work from raw talent.
Sometimes I see freshmeat as the programming equivalent of AVAM. Projects listed there range from fully-realized and mass-market useful to quirky little half-working utilities of interest only to their creators and a few fellow travelers.
The "free software movement" didn't give creative impulses to programmers. Rather, creative programmers gave rise to the idea of free software. The Free Software Foundation and other free software groups and Web sites have simply provided venues where those impulses could be shared with large numbers of people in an organized fashion.
What we are really seeing today isn't "free software ruining the commercial software business," but the inevitable democratization of software development as computers become as common as paint brushes or musical instruments.
I know a man whose pickup truck has signs on its doors that say, "Mr. Tony's Art For Kids - call for class schedules." It is no great mental leap to imagine a truck with signs that say, "Mr. Miguel's Programming For Kids - call for class schedules."
Tony makes his living as a handyman, not as an artist, but art is his passion, and he loves to share that passion; his art class fees barely cover materials, and if a kid shows up whose parents can't afford even that little bit, Tony won't turn that child away. He teaches art out of love, not for money. Few of the kids he teaches are likely to become professional artists, but art doesn't need to have money behind it to make it worth doing. Ideally, art enriches our lives whether we create it or simply enjoy the end product. Ditto music. Ditto sports. And, increasingly, programming.
Imagine a world where basic computer programming skills are as common as basic soccer or writing skills are today, and computers are as common as pens or soccer balls.
What percentage of literate people manage to make their livings as writers? What percentage of people who can kick a soccer ball earn their livings playing soccer? What percentage of all the people who can bang out a few guitar chords earn their livings as musicians?
We're rapidly heading for a world where computers are as common as pens or soccer balls -- and computer skills are as common as basic literacy or ball-kicking ability. And in that world, with or without an organized free software movement, I doubt that even 1/10 of 1% of all the people who "know how to program" will be able to get full-time jobs creating computer software.
Comments
on The programmer as (starving) artistNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
So, programming is a phase you go through and then you better find a job in project management. The biggest threat to established programming shops is a reduced barrier to entry for the hot young people, which is also a threat to the people on the cusp of the brain downturn.
Thus at one stroke explaining both the lack of journeyman skills in many IT shops and the corresponding abundance of poor managers.
The skill sets, they ain't the same. Going from programmer to PHB is not an example of natural evolution, but rather of mutation.
As Dilbert once put it, when he was telling his boss he had finally to hang up his coding pen and go into management, "I suppose this means I'll be getting a lobotomy?"
To which the PHB replied, "No. A week of quality training should do it."
Somewhere there should be a half-way house for making old programmers useful to society. I can see it now. Seminars entitled: Less Caffeine is Good, Improving Personal Hygiene, Dealing with the Sun, People are Just People, etc.
Heraclitus wrote "Nothing endures but change". Some programmers just can't handle it.
I think the above analysis of the economics is maybe a little fanciful. It makes no mention of quality of code, originality and the role of coder as inventor and scientist as well as artist (You dont need to actually be a very skilled codemonkey to scratch a unique itch with a creative algorithm). E = mc2 doesn't look like a lot on paper. By software management perspectives Einstein wasn't very productive in actual lines of code.
What a crock of manure.
I was a good programmer when I was in my 20s and I'm still a good programmer in my late 50s. I doubt the author of the parent post was ever a competent programmer.
A good programmer is, among many other things, someone who never stops learning new ideas.
But what prevents me from teaching rusting programmers is overwhelmingly their own refusal to learn. The thought of real work seems to repulse them. They don't actually like and likely never did like the challenge of programming and IT work, apparently. And often the older they are, the more bitter and whiney they are about having to DO anything.
That happens in every industry where people expect to have everything handed to them on a platter. Frequently those kinds of people get hung up on age because they aren't willing to admit to themselves that they wasted their own youth in a job they really didn't like. It was just for the easy money or glory or whatever.
What is most unfortunate is that by expecting younger programmers to sit around until they too are old and bitter before "the barrier" is lifted to allow them in, you are creating in the next generation the same misery you find in your own life now as payment for your lazy career decisions.
In other words, grow up and stop trying to impose your own career retardation on others. There is nothing to respect about an elder who has gained no wisdom.
Art is worthless in the sense that it accomplishes nothing commercially. Sure, it might be sold throught he ages, but it contributes nothing to the GNP. Code on the other hand IS the GNP. Remove all software derived business and our GNP would be comparable to Albania.
It is for this every reason that coders will not be artists. Code needs to have some assurance to it, lives and fortunes are on the line. People are always willing to pay for that assurance. I call it insurance.
If all you care about is money; then maybe you should't be in programming, instead management (at SCO or M$) should fit you better
Besides: not every painting is art(in fact most paintings are posters); and there are definately pieces of software that are art to me, but most are like posters; you throw them away when you're tired of looking at them.
Even if you can afford to pay for 'guaranteed' uptime on servers and workstations, penalties for failure come in the form of a financial rebate for downtime. Additionally, you can't guarantee any network with internet access won't be downed by faulty equipment (see cisco's latest buffer overflow), DDOS'ed, or spammed with virus and worms.
Unfotunately, this means that good code with minimal deficencies does have a parallel to art in that it's rare and potentially cost prohibitive.
I think not all code is art, but if the code is written to produce artistic effect, then that code could be defined: 'art' as in 'artifice'.
Effect plugins for audio sequencers, fractal exploration programs, games etc are also art.
Some code is to make $5 move between accounts.
Some paint is to be mixed with another to create a wondrous picture.
Some code is designed beautifully, it's inner-loop optimized, still useless.
Now how many times have you purchased software with buffer overrun vulnerabilites that segfaulted on install?
Bingo. Most programmers are schlock artists who are pushed in inappropriate ways on unrealistic deadlines, on code bases they understand a tiny fraction of, using libraries with multiple vulnerabilities. Treating the end result as some sacred shrine to the intellect of brilliant programmers worthy of hundreds or thousands of dollars / man hr. is, was, and always will be complete lunacy.
Get really zany and take the same code and refuse to open it to peer review, so it's many defects will never have an opportunity to get properly fixed, and you've just recreated M$. Congratulations.
The massively superior methodology of peer scorn and ridicule endemic to open source simply hasn't (can't?) be equaled in a proprietary methodology. It ain't freakin' rocket science, it's making a logical analysis and recognizing that easiest path often makes a hell of a lot more sense. Then a simple "What the hell, let's do that..." completely fscks an entire industry of cubicle slaves.
Moo.
Though William does have the vantage of history, so perhaps Nero and Caligula will not be interesting disaffected street people this time...
They will not earn a living, it's as simple as that.
For the vast majority of software there is no service&support business. For areas where there is service&support businesses (databases and high-end OSes for example) it will be outsourced. When databases for example becomes a commodity it's impossible to defend western level salaries on cutomization work.
'They will not earn a living, it's as simple as that.'
And so the programmers will be earning a living some other way and writing this code because they want to - for fun, love, etc.
And so, according to you, the only software that will get written is software an individual wants to write? Someone will pay someone else to write software for them if they can't do it for themselves, or don't have the time.
I often pay a plumber good money to do some work for me that I could do myself but don't have the time or the inclination to do when it needs to be done. Why is this so hard to grasp by so many?
A Nony Mouse
Of course, but you can kiss those obnoxious salaries and contracts goodbye, which seems to be the main complaint of extant programmers and wannabe CIS students.
A Naughty Moose
Where I am, a plumber can pull down sixty dollars an hour in labour, plus the profit on parts supplied which is not chicken feed.
A Nony Mouse
ps - nice to meet you moose, tell boris and natasha hello.
New technologies emerge and Americans gain a quick edge and then the "copy cats" emulate what we do for less money and then the threat of obsolescence rears its ugly head.
This is one old-timer geek that will laugh his way to the bank on the road to retirement!
When it stops becoming fashionable and the bottom drops out.. all the people who jumped on this "money making" bandwagon touting their computer knowledge and couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag will go away, or be exposed as wannabes. People will need real programmers again soon enough and the demand will go up along with the salaries again. People will forever be skeptics of IT stocks due to the big bubble burst, but in the end complacency rules the roost, and things will level out.
You know the real reason the plumber can get away with asking for so much? Because when the toilet is backed up and your house starts to stink, you get desperate to get it fixed. Industries will have their IT "toilets" backed up soon enough. And they'll go back to wanting to pay reliable people for reliable results.
Something else to think about. Most people don't put Walmart tires on their BMWs. Yeah they got a deal, but when their stranded from their cheap tires, they'll have wished they paid for a brand name.
Next: you say that software should be free. Unfortunately, when everything is free, a cop-out answer is usually given, whereby people with shoddy software hide behind the excuse that "well, I don't have time to do it. why don't you?". I say, let free software exist and let commercial software exist and let the users decide which they want.
I don't use Windows or MacOS (I have been and will continue to be a very happy Linux user), but I hate it when zealots spout nonsense that all software must be free. I have written commercial and non-commercial (free) software for years, and it sickens me when non-programmers rehash Stallman's world view. Stallman is an academic - the world in academia is vastly different from the real world, where users are NOT going to put up with sub-par products.
Ask an average computer user whether they would be more willing to:
1. pay $50 for software that will work without complex installation procedures, comes with technical support if you ever have a problem with it, and has extensive documentation?
2. pay nothing for software that does the same thing, but may have a vastly incompatible and confusing interface, come with no technical support, is not guaranteed to work at all (nor guaranteed not to ruin your existing system), nor comes with complete documentation?
The user can decide based on how much time they want to spend getting this software to work, how important it is to be running smoothly in the future, etc. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
1. Most free software I've used has far more and better documentation than the "user-friendly" treeware manuals that tell you how to turn on the power switch on a monitor...
2. "Tech support?!" Don't make me laugh...I've never used a tech support line, etc., but from what I gather, those people and corporations, etc. who do purchase support, simply end up waiting endlessly on a line, and then finally told from someone reading a script to "reboot the machine"...
1. A lot of "popular" free projects (read: many people contributing) has great documentation. MySQL, gcc and others have fantastic resources. Further, many programs have man/info pages, which are also helpful. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that all of this is "better." Case in point: read through much of the documentation Sun has put together and released. Granted, a lot of this stuff can seem stupid (i.e. how to turn the computer on), but when it comes right down to it, I can find a tidbit here or there about something that is genuinely helpful. Further, EVERY software/hardware vendor out there releases documentation with its product.
Perhaps this is really a moot point. The big free software projects have good documentation, as do most of the big commercial products. Both camps also have very bad documentation.
2. You're not the normal Joe Sixpack who thinks his CDROM drive is a cup holder.
Also, corporate tech support waits - especially when it matters - don't necessarily exist. Cisco has been known for its incredible tech support. When I was working for an Internet startup several years back, one of our Catalysts wasn't working properly (as near as we could tell). Well, one of the people in my group called up Cisco, got straight through to someone who actually knew what was going on, and they resolved the issues over the phone.
When money is on the line, and our service isn't available for any length of time, knowing we have someone available in an emergency that has intimate knowledge with the product we've purchased can mean the difference between failure and success. Companies pay exorbitant amounts of money for tech support (and on-site tech workers) for a reason.
It is simply impractical for a business not to purchase this sort of tech support for their mission-critical resources. When a crucial router fails and the bottom-line of the company is at stake, no one is going to sit around while some techies tinker with the hardware. An answer is needed, and it's needed right away. Tech support, where the customers can talk to knowledgeable staff, is the answer.
Ask an average computer user whether they would be more willing to:
1. pay $50 for software that will work without complex installation procedures, comes with technical support if you ever have a problem with it, and has extensive documentation?
2. pay nothing for software that does the same thing, but may have a vastly incompatible and confusing interface, come with no technical support, is not guaranteed to work at all (nor guaranteed not to ruin your existing system), nor comes with complete documentation?
¿can We suppose the average user uses MS-Win O.S.?, ¿how much does it cost?, ¿$50? (<A HREF="http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=MS+windows+home&btnG=Search+Froogle" TITLE="google.com">be realistic</a google.com>), ¿have you read the license terms and conditions?, ¿do they guarantee to work on "your" system?, ¿do they guarantee it's not going to ruin your existing system?, ¿does it comes with "complete" documentation?
They DON'T guarantee this, but they still want you to pay, so if i can get the same "guarantees" but "gratis" (spanish word for "without paying money"), it makes sense for me to do it.
--
Greetings
It is true that there exist many tools out there, such as Visual Basic & clones, that specialize in RAD with little quality control. I see individuals using this for their own purposes (perhaps distributing their own versions so others can use them). But I also see the same sort of competition that exists now. Why? Because user's want to DO something with their computer (like view pictures, create movies, etc - as evidenced most visibly by Apple Computer's product offerings and recent ad campaigns), not just learn how to program it.
College kids, corporate programmers and everyone else will all still write their own software for all sorts of new purposes - and many will try and sell it. But I also see a movement away from learning to program (and practicing it, for that matter) by the majority of people. Those who are left will become a commodity again. And, when the world catches a whiff of the salaries these folks will be drawing in, they'll all want a piece again.
The world moves in cycles. The economy, the ocean, everything. Even the tech industry. If you don't believe me, wait 20 years and see for yourself.
I have a Job running and mataining computers. So sometimes it gets quite I have caught up on everything. Now don't tell my boss I look bussy when there is nothing better to do writing code. So I created code on his system while being payed by him to keep it running(ie I am not being payed to program just watch and mantain it). Some of this is fine ie the boss knows that I was patching X in my spare time to enchance overall system perforance. Note it is not alway posiable to go home due to the fact that someone or something stuffs something up somewhere and it has to be fixed quickly.
Now most of my coding is patching not writing from scratch due to time contrants. So the licence of GPL and BSD lets me join in. Basicly do you ask someone why they do something for fun. They will say it is just fun. This is the same for people like me the creation of a fix and seeing it work is payment enough for me.
It is all how much you value what you do. Also I whould call it strange to be asking for cash when I was recieving money for what I was doing. This is mult tasking watching system writing code. Now really I should be giving full time to boss but some of his past people played computer games to pass the time but a game cannot be stop as quicly as code just press save and come back later. Or nice auto script that causes my coding program to autosave and shutdown if left for 5 mins without being touched so I can just walkaway giving faster responce times than my gamer equals.
Basicly I would like to see anyone say that I should take money for code I created while performing another job. It does not seam right to take money for it.
In the real world, it's often the other way round: Good programmers are unsatisfied with what they make in their paid jobs, so they write open source software in their free time just to prove their own level of excelence; something they for some reason can't in their paid jobs.
What if the Artist says the program is Art?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2003 10:00 AMCheck out this press release I just wrote:
<A HREF="http://mojo.skazat.com/project/press_release_12_01_03.html" TITLE="skazat.com">
http://mojo.skazat.com/project/press_release_12_0<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> _03.html</a skazat.com>
Since I am an "artist", I can say that anything I make, touch, look at is art. Anyone can call themselves an artist.
I believe what I've done is fairly strong, since a program does have aesthetics, did take time and thought, exists in our time and has been chosen as an art object from the author (me).
I'm also a Junior in Art College. We live in Postmodern times. Definitions are slippery. Mediums are flexible. It's a wild time.
And all three things -- writing, programming and Art -- are creative. And it is the creativity of it which drives one to do it whether one is paid for it or not. If I won the lottery tomorrow , I would still program; I'd just spend more time writing Free Software. And I'd probably spend more time writing stories and making art, and I'd have a ball! And I wouldn't be doing it to make money (though some works I'd sell if people wanted to pay me for them, I think).
I already know that the creative arts are not a thing to make a living out of -- I'm not one of those people who consider that the only purpose of fan fiction is to practice until one gets Published. I have no intention of entering the commercial world of publishing. I'd rather write what I want to write, when I feel like it, for fun. Likewise with Art (and I don't think my art is really anywhere near commercial levels anyway). I'm glad that my third creative love, programming, does happen to be something I can make a well-paid living at.
So, what if I couldn't make a living at it? How likely is that really? I guess there's two levels of question there -- can one make a living? Or can one make a huge salary? There's a difference between hugely paid software prima-donnas, and people making a living.
I think one will always be able to make a living with programming, because unlike art and fiction, it isn't really going to be considered to be a luxury.
Ah, but you say, what about Free Software? What about when it replaces all commercial software out there? Where will your skills be then?
My skills will be where they always were.
One thing which many people in the Free Software versus Commercial Software debate don't seem to grasp is that not all software can be commoditized. I don't mean "customization" of commercial software which the article mentions.
I mean genuinely specialist software. And also software-as-service. I work for a small software company which creates specialist software. And we're intelligent enough to depend for our livelihood not on development contracts, but on support contracts. And we give good support.
I'm not going to be put out of a job by Free Software. Free Software usually gets written to "scratch an itch", but I can't imagine a Random J. Programmer having an "itch" in this particular problem domain, nor the expertise in the problem area to do it well.
But even if, somehow, niche markets didn't exist and all software was commoditized, I still think programmers would be able to make a living -- as distinct from making huge salaries. Much more than there are people making livings out of writing, acting or art. Because people need software more than they need entertainment.
Because software is functional as well as being creative.
Perhaps one should compare it to a Craft, rather than an Art.
Kerr Avonsen
Personally, I believe the most insidious effect of free software is that it puts development tools into the hands of people who might not otherwise be able to afford them, thereby increasing the number of potential programmers. If it takes $20,000 worth of hardware and specialized software to program for a particular operating system or language, obviously there won't be as many programmers working with that operating system or language as with ones that can be obtained for free.
So, you think we should lock up all the tools and tightly control who and who cannot take a crack at being a programmer? What are you a mason? or a bolshevik? This comment is elitist and the philosophy behind it is socialist.
In case you didn't know this, not everyone who tries their hand at programming is successful. It's not just some easy thing that anyone can do well because they have some fancy IDE. It takes a very diligent person to succeed as a programmer and development tools are not going to help anyone become a good programmer. There are no silver bullets.
Not only that, programming is not an art. It's a skill. And it is more like carpentry than music or painting.
The most skilled carpenters do produce a lot of art, but just because some one has access to saws, hammers, and routers doesn't mean that they can produce for you a beautiful hand crafted armoire with custom engravings.
The same holds true with programming. Just because you have the tools doesn't mean you know what to do with them.
I've seen many people in this business try their hand at programming and fail. And they had free access to any tool their heart desired. On the other hand, some of the best coders I've ever seen had nothing more than notepad and a compiler with the necessary libraries.
This article sounds like it was written by a member of the RIAA. I bet you propose that once we control the development tools, anyone caught with Eclipse be sued for everything they own.
You lazy whiner programmers who can't figure out how to make a living without re-selling software for a living are not even programmers at all.
Here's some advice. Get up in the morning and put your work boots on and go make a living like everyone else.....by working.
Anyone who is for "less freedom" such as the author of this article who wishes to limit the availabilty of tools to the "elite" is not thinking with a capitalist mind.
And the idea of selling software licenses to make a fortune is not being realistic. Most real programmers get up and go to work everyday working for a salary. Not too many programmers are receiving royalties and living in mansions.
The majority of programmers are working for a businesses solving the problems for the business. That's why they get paid.
Personally, I work at a major airline of over 7,000 employees and a bunch of us are programmers. We're no different than the mechanics. We come in everday and do our jobs. We're not under some dillusion that we are going to get rich by selling a license to the code we write. Anyone who's vision of a programming career is becoming wealthy by writing code is not living in reality. It takes a hell of a lot more than a brillian technical mind to have that kind of success in the sofware development business.
Huge debt.
Huge baggage.
Huge responsibility.
Huge reform.
Starving artist.
Striving to survive.
Striving to co-exist with the enemy of the public, large corporate greed, back slappers,
free loaders with huge profits, huge egos, huge appetites, power mongers intent on squashing the intelligent.
Sometimes the tools make a difference, but more often not. Musicians didn't do better before their instruments became cheaper, nor is a $2k axe going to make a star. I hesitate mentioning carpenters, because now days that applies to anyone making minimum wage framing houses in Fla, while finish work in even lower paying markets like Mesa, AZ does extremely well. I've seen folks spend a fortune, and I've seen an uncle retire after 30+ Very high paid years, having never even bought a truck (he bought used cars and pulled the back seats).
At the same time I've seen the dawn of the PC age, and remember when just having a laser printer got you upwards of $0.50 a page. Kind of like writing HTML, it was good for a short while. DTP had a period in the spotlight, but a LOT of the early pros, a lot of post houses, a lot of printers, all went bust. Why? Because they favored the exclusive, higher priced tools, and thought it was protection - much to the applause of the quick print shops that took over. Personally I think Adobe got hurt pretty badly by catering to this philosophy, coming Very late to the table with Elements.
Personally, I think at the end of the day writing good code, doing good design, doing quality work no matter the category, matters, is in itself an art that can and should please the face in the mirror. I think, hope that the availability of tools, even if it spawns a lot of code, will only reinforce the difference between quality and not. Times may not ever be as good, but I don't think they'll collapse either, at least not because of more tools...
What I wouldn't like to see, is something like what happened to auto repair. Anyone could buy tools, but few could ever be a mechanic. For almost a century it was a decent career, if not one to get rich off of, though a few did. Today, the majority of cars it seems in the US are leased for a few years, and maintenance and repair are not concerns. The cars themselves are designed for little or no maintenance, which paid well, and if they ever see a shop they've broke, which doesn't pay so well.
Cars are higher priced, and many carry longer or extended warranties. These are like the reduced fees doctors are paid under Medicare, only mechanics are not doctors, paid just enough to barely scrape by doing this sort of work. The majority of dealer service dept.s don't break even, but are considered a cost of doing business. Actual repair is moving more to just replacing whatever, requiring less skill and lower payroll.
It's a stretch, but the same could conceivably happen in the IT world, in some applications. Not everyone can write code, surprisingly few I think, but then today few people can actually write a letter, or bother to try.
Something to think about after hoisting a few anyways.
My point is what if I want to write software all the time. I dont want to have a day job and develop software as a hobby. I want to live and breathe software development. Am I wrong? Am I crazy? What is the solution for me? Open the source and live on donations?
kids, read what he says and go to law school
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2003 09:47 PM#