←back to thread

I just want to code (2023)

(www.zachbellay.com)
288 points SCUSKU | 5 comments | 27 Apr 25 20:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.019s | source
Show context
IvanK_net ◴[28 Apr 25 05:26 UTC] No.43817875[source]▶
I have no idea why they mention coding. It is the same in any kind of job. You can bake cakes for fun, make music for fun, write poems, novels, play chess for fun, practice sports, grow potatos ...

At a certain stage, you realize that in order to be able to do only that job, you must make someone pay you for it. You must do it in a way (or in a volume) which makes others happy. The fact that it makes you happy is not enough anymore.

I don't think there is an angel and a devil. It is still the same thing. If you like the result of your work, there is a high chance that others will like it. You don't need to change what you do by a 100%. Changing it by 5% - 10% is often enough.

replies(4): >>43818020 #>>43819061 #>>43819501 #>>43820097 #
blahgeek ◴[28 Apr 25 05:49 UTC] No.43818020[source]▶
I think it's more common because one doing only coding can get paid reasonably. On the contrary, few people who "bake cakes for fun, make music for fun, write poems, novels, play chess for fun, practice sports, grow potatos" can get paid enough for a living, so that's usually not an option to consider. (Which is the reason that I find us coding people very lucky.)
replies(3): >>43818457 #>>43822746 #>>43829729 #
Juliate ◴[28 Apr 25 07:08 UTC] No.43818457[source]▶
> only coding can get paid reasonably

If you happen to work for a company that's big enough to pay reasonably. And even that is still a very temporary accident of times.

There was a time with plenty (comparatively to today) of tailors, living very reasonably, because there was a demand, and the means.

Today, you're lucky if you manage to find one that's in your city, and even more if he/she's not too expensive (that is, compared to ready-made stuff).

replies(3): >>43818619 #>>43818700 #>>43818917 #
1. milesrout ◴[28 Apr 25 08:24 UTC] No.43818917[source]▶
I'm not sure that is actually true about tailors. My understanding is that most clothing was homemade. I assume people didnt generally make their own shoes but they made their own textiles and basic garments and most people didnt have many garments.

Maybe there is a specific time period you are referring to where this was common but as I understand it, pre-industrially there were very few artisans selling products for money. Clothes were made largely by women and girls for their families.

replies(2): >>43820900 #>>43821164 #
2. foobarian ◴[28 Apr 25 12:44 UTC] No.43820900[source]▶
Be that as it may, there definitely used to be more tailors.
3. 9rx ◴[28 Apr 25 13:10 UTC] No.43821164[source]▶
Presumably he is referring to the industrialization period when suits were the everyday fashion. Once we moved on to baggy jeans and sweatpants, where the fit doesn't matter much, then the tailor was no longer relevant.
replies(2): >>43823941 #>>43823994 #
4. ◴[28 Apr 25 17:36 UTC] No.43823941[source]▶
5. Juliate ◴[28 Apr 25 17:41 UTC] No.43823994[source]▶
Yes, I'm referring to what we could call the golden age of tailoring, around 1800-1970.

You could say it was brief, relative to humanity history, indeed, as a transition period between cottage/home textile manufacturing as well as sewing, and high (and accelerating) automation managed by fewer people and lots of low-paid workers (as it is today).

And such is the trajectory for software development, a brief golden age, between the moment where computers barely existed, and the moment where automation/acceleration takes over.

It won't eliminate software development, but it won't require as many people as it does today. Some "local" artisan shops, highly skilled, and more expensive, may still exist.

But the capital currently feeling high tech salaries will inevitably seek new/other growth opportunities, as it has always done with other growth drivers.