[greymalik]

> One could only wonder why they became a programmer in the first place, given their seeming disinterest in coding.

To solve problems. Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself.

> careful configuration of our editor, tinkering with dot files, and dev environments

That may be fun for you, but it doesn’t add value. It’s accidental complexity that I am happy to delegate.

[codyb]

Configuring editors, dot files, and dev environments consistently adds value by giving you familiarity with your working environment, honing your skills with your tools, and creating a more productive space tailored to your needs.

Who else becomes the go to person for modifying build scripts?

The amount of people I know who have no idea how to work with Git after decades in the field using it is pretty amazing. It's not helpful for everyone else when you're the one they're delegating their merge conflict bullshit too cause they've never bothered to learn anything about the tools they're using.

[mupuff1234]

Have you considered that the problem is with Git and not the users?

[ares623]

Careful with the “doesn’t add value” talk. If you follow it far enough to its logical end, you get to “Existence doesn’t add value”

[jckahn]

This is one of those random internet comments that I'll be thinking about for decades. Thank you for sharing it!

[cool_man_bob]

That’s the point lol.

[bcrosby95]

The point of most jobs in the world is to "solve problems". So why did you pick software over those?

[whynotminot]

Why would someone who likes solving problems choose a very lucrative career path solving problems… hmmm

You can also solve problems as a local handyman but that doesn’t pad the 401K quite as well as a career in software.

I feel like there’s a lot of tech-fetishist right now on the “if you don’t deeply love to write code then just leave!” train without somehow realizing that most of us have our jobs because we need to pay bills, not because it’s our burning passion.

[aleph_minus_one]

> The point of most jobs in the world is to "solve problems". So why did you pick software over those?

Because in a lot of jobs where you (have to) solve problems, the actual problems to solve are rather "political". So, if you are not good at office politics or you are not a good diplomat, software is often a much better choice.

[MountDoom]

The honest answer that applies to almost everyone here is that as a kid, they liked playing computer games and heard that the job pays well.

It's interesting, because to become a plumber, you pretty much need a plumber parent or a friend to get you interested in the trade show you the ropes. Meanwhile, software engineering is closer to the universal childhood dream of "I want to become an astronaut" or "I want to be a pop star", except more attainable. It's very commoditized by now, so if you're looking for that old-school hacker ethos, you're gonna be disappointed.

[toprerules]

> Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself.

For the early MIT hackers, and for many of us still today, it absolutely is.

It's also not about the input mechanisms, which have changed over the years. Solving problems, turning complexity into simplicity, cool hacks, that's what the hacker ethos is about. It's not about driving "value".

I suppose you also feel that there's no value in learning a musical instrument either.

[wolvesechoes]

> but it doesn’t add value

Sad to see people reduce themselves willingly to cogs inside business machine.

[keeda]

You can spend as much time as you want on "configuration of our editor, tinkering with dot files, and dev environments" and otherwise honing your craft, the business machine will still look at you as cogs.

May seem depressing, but the bright side is that you as an individual are then free to find joy in your work wherever you can find it... whether its in delivering high-quality code, or just collecting a paycheck.

[gr4vityWall]

> Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself. > That may be fun for you, but it doesn’t add value

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but those statements are subjective, not an objective truth. Lots of people fundamentally enjoy the process of coding, and would keep doing it even in a hypothetical world with no problems left to solve, or if they had UBI.

[GaryBluto]

These are my thoughts exactly. Whenever I use agents to assist me in creating a simple program for myself, I carefully guide it through everything I want created, with me usually writing pages and pages of detailed plaintext instructions and specifications when it comes to the backends of things, I then modify it and design a user interface.

I very much enjoy the end product and I also enjoy designing (not necessarily programming) a program that fits my needs, but rarely implementing, as I have issues focusing on things.

[CuriouslyC]

> To solve problems. Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself.

100% this. I think a lot of the people who are angry at AI coding for them are "code calligraphers" who care more about the form of the thing they're making than the problem that it solves. I can't see how someone's who's primarily solution focused would shed a tear at AI coding for them.

[kiitos]

> To solve problems. Coding is the means to an end, not the end itself.

solving problems is an outcome of programming, not the purpose of programming

[davidw]

I think the author makes a decent point with regards to 'problem solving' and better tools and how LLM's somehow feel different. Fortran is a better tool, but you can still reproducibly trace things back to assembly code through the compiler.

LLM's feel like a non-deterministic compiler that transforms English into code of some sort.

[dingnuts]

A chef who sharpens his knives should stop because it doesn't add value

A contractor who prefers a specific brand of tool is wrong because the tool is a means to an end

This is what you sound like. Just because you don't understand the value of a craftsman picking and maintaining their tools doesn't mean the value isn't real.

[senordevnyc]

Yes, but the point of being a chef is the food, not the knives. If there's a better way to prepare food than a knife, but you refuse to change, are you really a chef? Or are you a chef knife enthusiast?

[blashyrk]

> coding is the means to an end

...

> doesn't add value

What about intrinsic value? So many programmers on HN seem to just want to be MBAs in their heart of hearts

[NeutralCrane]

Some of you have never been laid off and it shows.

Intrinsic value is great, where achievable. Companies do not care at all about intrinsic value. I take pride in my work and my craft to the extent I am allowed to, but the reality is that those of us who can’t adapt to the businesses desires will be made obsolete and cut loose, regardless of whatever values we hold.

[whynotminot]

I got a few paragraphs into this piece before rolling my eyes and putting it down.

I consider myself an engineer — a problem solver. Like you said, code is just the means to solve the problems put before me.

I’m just as content if solving the problem turns out to be a process change or user education instead of a code commit.

I have no fetish for my terminal window or IDE.

[NewsaHackO]

The issue is that a lot of “programmers” think bike-shedding is the essence of programming. Fifty years ago, they would have been the ones saying that not using punch cards takes away from the art of programming, and then proudly showing off multiple intricate hole punchers they designed for different scenarios.

Good problem solvers... solve problems. The technological environment will never devalue their skills. It’s only those who rest on their laurels who have this issue.