←back to thread

128 points taylorlunt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
zwnow ◴[] No.44735172[source]
It also caused the "Golden Age of Programming". It's only been a golden age because of high salaries for relatively low effort. So if their needs change, obviously the industry changes. This article has nothing to say really.
replies(4): >>44735252 #>>44735280 #>>44735965 #>>44738526 #
rkozik1989 ◴[] No.44735280[source]
>It's only been a golden age because of high salaries for relatively low effort.

Money is how you define a Golden Age of Programming? I consider the late 1990s and early 2000s more of a Golden Age, and my reasons for it have nothing to do with making money. The time was of Golden Age because that's when programming became more accessible to the masses. Yes it wasn't without its fault, namely with regards to cyber security, but people all of the world suddenly were able to learn how to code and all the needed was an Internet connection.

Frankly, all this nonsense about money, total compensation, etc. is the cancer that killed programming.

replies(8): >>44735330 #>>44735355 #>>44735432 #>>44735477 #>>44735515 #>>44735939 #>>44736044 #>>44736521 #
klik99 ◴[] No.44736521[source]
Open source really flourished due to lots of sponsoring of projects, I could see an argument that money caused a golden age in 2010s, but money also attracted the type of person who could, without irony, say "It's only been a golden age because of high salaries for relatively low effort."

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

replies(1): >>44738477 #
1. zwnow ◴[] No.44738477[source]
Because my industry experience has been exactly that. It's importing stuff and puzzling packages together. There really isn't a lot of jobs where you actually have to implement interesting algorithms yourself.