[santaclaus]

> very few people are programmers at the level of a Linus Torvalds, Peter Norvig or Fabrice Bellard.

I never really thought of Peter Norvig as a 'programmer' in the sense of Linus Torvalds -- I always lumped Norvig more into the high minded computer scientist camp. It seems like the criteria by which one judges success in the two areas are very different.

[jacquesm]

Read some of Norvigs code and tell me he's not a programmer, his stuff is some of the most elegant and efficient that I've ever seen.

[teacup50]

Putting programmers on a pedestal fits with the YC culture of marketing via lionization of technology personalties, but it's counter-productive if your aim is to actually grow in the field.

Hero worship blinds you to two simple facts, in almost all cases:

- They're not doing anything you couldn't also do if you worked at it as hard as they have.

- Like everyone, they're fallible, making mistakes, and may even not deserve the hero worship being heaped on them. Until you've worked as hard as they have to reach a sufficient level of understanding, you're not going to have as strong of a critical eye for where the erstwhile hero is doing it wrong.

Better to put no-one on a pedestal (least of all yourself).

[jacquesm]

I'm not putting him on a pedestal at all. He's by objective standards simply one of the best programmers that I know of, just like Usain Bolt is an extremely fast runner.

[teacup50]

That is, by definition, a pedestal. It's not a useful metric by which to approach the world.

[michaelwww]

I'm sorry to disagree but you're wrong. There are better programmers than I, that no matter how hard I work I will never be as good as. Not everyone can be a Mozart or Mozart wouldn't be special.

[teacup50]

You'll never be as good if you think of people this way.