| Only it's not about "your definition of glamour", it's about the general definition of glamour. TFA talks about the glamorous presentation of programmers in some movies and media specifically (in which they mostly represent the top dog entrepreneur programmers -- think Justin Timberlake on the Social Network et al). I mean, which part of TFA's "depicts a tale of the less than 1% of programmers who become extremely rich, famous and successful, practically overnight" is difficult to understand? Not even telecommuting and having a good salary and "bonsai trees" is not the same at all as the kind of glamorous the media (and TFA) describes, it's also not representative of the 95% of programmers. Most of the 1-5 points you note apply to a lot of professions. In fact you see all those benefits far more often in other fields than you do in programming. And it sure is not in the typical percentiles for programming jobs. Plus point 5 is bogus. Either you have money to do anything you wont (including not working), or you don't have freedom. This has nothing to do with programming. It's not even orthogonal, as the vast majority of programmers are not rich and the vast majority of rich people are not programmers. If you mean you have "inner freedom", then that you can have also bumming in the streets. >And that to me is glamour, hardly a "trailer-park idea of glamour". It sure is not the general middle class idea of glamour. Which is what TFA is about (Ferraris, partying all night, red carpet events, etc). |