[orthecreedence]

No, an artisan is an artisan. A developer is developer. That's not to say some developers aren't artisans, but a lot of people are developers because it pays the bills: they build things, and are good at building things, because they see it as a means to an end. Some do it as a means of expression: it is their medium for creation. Both modes of operation, and everything in between, are equally viable and valid.

I guess my point is, it's fine to write code and NOT be an artisan. I'd argue that most people who code are not as interested in the creation aspect of is as much as "doing cool stuff" or making money...and that's fine.

But let's not paint all developers with an artisan brush.

[dragonwriter]

> No, an artisan is an artisan. A developer is developer. That's not to say some developers aren't artisans, but a lot of people are developers because it pays the bills

That's the norm for artisans (which is just a skilled worker in a trade involved in making things, especially by hand), not a distinction. Artists may be a different story, but artists aren't the same thing as artisans.

[alexanderdmitri]

I'd argue the diff between artisan & artist is semantics. Conceptually they both yearn for the elevation that comes along with your output being considered an art.