It's been a while since I've read this essay -- and I'm surprised by some of the reactions I'm reading in these comments!
The essay is just as good now as it was then.
The underlying ideas are not only correct, they're being actively validated in the increase in salaries for good programmers.
Someone in this thread says that programming is a commodity. Well, sure. Isn't everything?
But the key point in the essay is about making value directly, by making something people want.
Has that somehow become a dated notion? Isn't it, rather, being validated with every single startup that enriches its value-creating founders?
There's no 'magic' in the essay, of course. No secret key to success, no fairy dust; I'm sorry for anyone who felt there was, but such is youth.
The essay never said that all programmers will become millionaires.
What it said was that if you wanted to become rich, and you're a programmer, probably your best shot is to make a product that people want.
Google and Facebook and Twitter and more, they're all validating that argument by raising salaries for their best talent, to make creating value directly for the customer a less attractive option.
The underlying ideas are not only correct, they're being actively validated in the increase in salaries for good programmers.
Then why do people complain about low wages and poor equity offers? Not everyone is a Google employee making $250k in salary + benefits.
But the key point in the essay is about making value directly, by making something people want. Has that somehow become a dated notion? Isn't it, rather, being validated with every single startup that enriches its value-creating founders?
Where are all of these startups that magically print money for their founders? All I see on HN are people grinding away on their MVPs (or pushing a landing page as their MVP) while we discuss the same hot-shot startups (Square, Twitter, FB, etc.) over and over again.
The essay is just as good now as it was then.
The underlying ideas are not only correct, they're being actively validated in the increase in salaries for good programmers.
Someone in this thread says that programming is a commodity. Well, sure. Isn't everything?
But the key point in the essay is about making value directly, by making something people want.
Has that somehow become a dated notion? Isn't it, rather, being validated with every single startup that enriches its value-creating founders?
There's no 'magic' in the essay, of course. No secret key to success, no fairy dust; I'm sorry for anyone who felt there was, but such is youth.
The essay never said that all programmers will become millionaires.
What it said was that if you wanted to become rich, and you're a programmer, probably your best shot is to make a product that people want.
Google and Facebook and Twitter and more, they're all validating that argument by raising salaries for their best talent, to make creating value directly for the customer a less attractive option.