I am "the 1%"? Not nearly, if you mean "THE 1%," which starts at around $350k per year.
If you just mean the top 1% of developers? Well, maybe I AM in the top 1% of developers, though I don't know how anyone could measure that. But the point is I got here through passion. And the point of my reply is that passion IS relevant to this discussion.
And that it's only not relevant to people who don't experience it with regard to programming. Honestly, I don't know if someone who doesn't experience passion can CHANGE that; you're passionate about what you're passionate about, and telling yourself to obsess about something seems like it just wouldn't work.
So don't take this as any kind of criticism; I'm not saying you're Doing It Wrong. Just that passion DOES make a difference; when you have it, you have no reason to listen to people who tell you that you'll be irrelevant and no one will hire you when you're 45, because you'll be keeping yourself relevant out of habit. Just don't claim that it's not relevant in general, because it is. Climbing to the top of ANY profession or other endeavor really requires it; the most obvious example being Olympic athletes, who typically don't start out at the top of their sport, but achieve the top by being more passionate (and therefore obsessive) about practicing.
It makes me want more terms for "programmer" or "developer" (and not including "rock star", which has connotations that annoy people). There's such a range of skill encompassed by those terms that they're practically useless, and they spawn debates like the above where people have 15 different ideas what a "programmer" is (in yours, I'm in the top 1%, and in mine, I hang out with "typical" developers, and yet a lot of people I know work on interesting projects with an option to contract). Heck, pretty much everyone at Google is in a similar situation, in that they can (typically) switch projects easily if they get bored. And there are far too many developers at Google for all of them to be in the top 1%, I think.
I understand where you're coming from. PASSION (with capital letters) is important. PASSION for programming is what got me to get a BA and MA in computer science. It's what makes me sit in front of my computer working on side projects whenever I have a chance to. However, the point of this article and the original one is not that. These articles speak of the day to day stress loaded routine job of a regular* developer. And this is where passion (with lower case letters) is not important. My point about the 1% vs the 99% is that not everyone works for Google, Facebook ... In fact, all the contract workers I know struggle a great deal to make ends meet. We need to broaden our analysis to the sate of programming in the whole world. I am not talking about silicon valley or the bay area, which I consider to be the 1%. I had the chance of working in mid-west USA and in a foreign country and I have friends working in other countries. All I can say is that the majority of them don't want to be programming when they are 50.
If you just mean the top 1% of developers? Well, maybe I AM in the top 1% of developers, though I don't know how anyone could measure that. But the point is I got here through passion. And the point of my reply is that passion IS relevant to this discussion.
And that it's only not relevant to people who don't experience it with regard to programming. Honestly, I don't know if someone who doesn't experience passion can CHANGE that; you're passionate about what you're passionate about, and telling yourself to obsess about something seems like it just wouldn't work.
So don't take this as any kind of criticism; I'm not saying you're Doing It Wrong. Just that passion DOES make a difference; when you have it, you have no reason to listen to people who tell you that you'll be irrelevant and no one will hire you when you're 45, because you'll be keeping yourself relevant out of habit. Just don't claim that it's not relevant in general, because it is. Climbing to the top of ANY profession or other endeavor really requires it; the most obvious example being Olympic athletes, who typically don't start out at the top of their sport, but achieve the top by being more passionate (and therefore obsessive) about practicing.
It makes me want more terms for "programmer" or "developer" (and not including "rock star", which has connotations that annoy people). There's such a range of skill encompassed by those terms that they're practically useless, and they spawn debates like the above where people have 15 different ideas what a "programmer" is (in yours, I'm in the top 1%, and in mine, I hang out with "typical" developers, and yet a lot of people I know work on interesting projects with an option to contract). Heck, pretty much everyone at Google is in a similar situation, in that they can (typically) switch projects easily if they get bored. And there are far too many developers at Google for all of them to be in the top 1%, I think.