There is a myth, but the myth propels reality. Take this line in the article as a reason:
> That leads people to be working crazy hours at work, to be constantly studying programming topics on their own time, and so on.
This attitude will create ninjas/rockstars/whatever, even if the original notion isn't true. Folks who spend every waking hour thinking about and learning about something are going to be better than the folks who don't do that level of effort.
I agree that programming skill is going to shape itself into a bell curve, but I would also argue that a bump exists in the 3rd or 4th standard deviation, with all the folks who've been driven (for good or bad reasons) to eat/drink/breathe programming.
The thrust of the article is that it's okay to be mediocre, and I agree, but I don't think it's healthy to be satisfied with where you are in any skill-based craft. It's more healthy to be okay that you're not already better (I'm not a rockstar yet), but being okay with not getting better is a toxic thought.
This attitude will create ninjas/rockstars/whatever, even if the original notion isn't true. Folks who spend every waking hour thinking about and learning about something are going to be better than the folks who don't do that level of effort.
It will create people who believe themselves to be something special, sure, but that's all you can say for certain. Where are the results that prove it is deteministic? For every startup full of rockstars that succeeds, there are 1000 who worked just as hard and sunk without a trace.
One can say, with absolute and unwavering certainty based on what we know about practice, that folks who spend every waking hour thinking about and learning about some specific skill will tend to display a higher level of competence than those who don't.
Obviously there will be folks who practice incorrectly, and there will be folks who hit a skill ceiling, and there will be a myriad of folks who aren't maximally benefitting from their practice for one reason or another, but if you take a group of people who study and pit them against a group of people who do not study, the group who studies will be more proficient at the given task.
> That leads people to be working crazy hours at work, to be constantly studying programming topics on their own time, and so on.
This attitude will create ninjas/rockstars/whatever, even if the original notion isn't true. Folks who spend every waking hour thinking about and learning about something are going to be better than the folks who don't do that level of effort.
I agree that programming skill is going to shape itself into a bell curve, but I would also argue that a bump exists in the 3rd or 4th standard deviation, with all the folks who've been driven (for good or bad reasons) to eat/drink/breathe programming.
The thrust of the article is that it's okay to be mediocre, and I agree, but I don't think it's healthy to be satisfied with where you are in any skill-based craft. It's more healthy to be okay that you're not already better (I'm not a rockstar yet), but being okay with not getting better is a toxic thought.