Beware of putting people on pedestals. Far better is to just follow people who do cool stuff. They don't have to be a "master" to do something cool that will inspire you.
My introduction to the world of professional software development was meeting one of the idols and hanging out with him for two days before realizing who he was. We've kept in touch since then and I now consider him one of my best friends.
I agree about putting people on pedestals, and my own experiences speak to that. The person I once saw in a very idealized way I now see as fully a person, complete with faults and failures.
I would argue that there are no "masters" - or rather, that there are very few of them, and those that I might consider such are "just people" too.
> I would argue that there are no "masters" - or rather, that there are very few of them, and those that I might consider such are "just people" too.
Mastery does not obviate humanity.
The most gifted (which I define as the cross-section between talented and practiced) people I know tend to care more about the content of your character than your technical prowess.
>The most gifted (which I define as the cross-section between talented and practiced) people I know tend to care more about the content of your character than your technical prowess.
Odd choice of words, wouldn't it make more sense to switch the meaning of 'talented' and 'gifted'? A 'gift' is something you receive without sacrifice, while a 'talent' needs to be honed.
Not a native speaker but I also find that odd: I always thought talented referred to the parable about the servants who were given talents, and as such I would expect that talented and gifted would be almost the same.
Disclaimer: I shouldn't be regarded as any sort of authority on the English language.
I sort of decide what words mean to me, publish them, and then stick to those definitions (while pointing anyone confused towards the published definitions).
There's probably a better way to classify these ideas without tripping over other peoples' lexicographic pedantry, but this is the Internet and you're always going to find a contrary opinion no matter what you do. The winning move is to not play.
Thus:
talent: natural affinity
skill: aptitude gained through effort
gifted: a person who is both talented and skilled in an area
I just found it weird that you chose the word 'gift' as something less innate than a 'talent'. It's also interesting that 'talent' used to have the meaning 'A desire or inclination for something', which is similar to your use of the word gift.
Anyway, I won't say the way you're using those words is wrong, language is after all pretty flexible, it just didn't seem like the most obvious choice.
In bedrooms across England // and all the Western world // there’s posters and there’s magazines // but the music isn’t ours
So tear down the stars now // and take up your guitars // come on folks and try this at home
Let’s stop waiting around // for someone to patronize us // Let’s hammer out a sound // that speaks of where we’ve been // Forget about the haircuts // the stupid skinny jeans
// the stampedes and the irony // the media-fed scenes
Also: If you don't find your name on this thread, that doesn't mean that you're a nobody and that your work is unappreciated. It only means that the sort of folks who'd respond to a thread like this in earnest haven't noticed you, which probably isn't a reflection on your value to the {community, industry, world} (select appropriate).
Hopefully all of our work is appreciated by the people near us but it's really ok to be a "nobody" as in you aren't famous or even regarded as a "dev to be followed." There shouldn't be the expectation that to be a professional who's good at your job and solves problems you should also be on the list of popular devs people follow.
Agree with this. I think that many of the people named here may be more talented at marketing their ideas and themselves within certain developer communities. Their work may seem popular and exciting, but are lost in abstract thought and have little to no connection to the real world. Rarely will you hear about the programmers who write software for the things people rely on every day, these are the unsung heroes.
Sometimes pedestals are justified, though. For instance, Dan Abramov (mentioned by OP) is not only one of the most respected voices in React patterns and best practices, he also works at Facebook and has an outsized voice in advocating for development priorities internally; in fact, he is the secretary at the core group meetings [0]. What he retweets [1] is the closest indication we can get to what the core group will have in mind when choosing what design patterns to best support going forward, in both performance and syntax. And so "What Would Dan Abramov Do?" is a tongue-in-cheek meme at the office, but it's also a helpful indicator to help future-proof our choices of React patterns.
I agree about putting people on pedestals, and my own experiences speak to that. The person I once saw in a very idealized way I now see as fully a person, complete with faults and failures.
I would argue that there are no "masters" - or rather, that there are very few of them, and those that I might consider such are "just people" too.