A developer writing on Orchid Files distinguishes between two fundamentally different approaches to programming: treating it as a career path versus pursuing it as an art form.
According to the author’s account, early in his career, programming consumed his entire life. He studied frameworks, libraries, and programming languages with the goal of building products people would use. He enjoyed the creative process of starting from scratch with an idea and bringing it to life through code.
However, over time, his motivation shifted. As he advanced his career toward management roles and away from hands-on coding, the author began viewing programming primarily as a means to generate income. “Although I got into development out of an interest in creating things, later on I did it solely because I was getting paid for it,” he writes. His focus moved from the desire to create to the financial returns projects could generate.
The author identifies a contrasting group: “true programmers” who write code regardless of financial incentive. These developers work on open-source projects that generate no income, and they derive satisfaction from the process itself—solving challenges, designing systems, fixing bugs, and understanding code holistically. “They enjoy the process itself,” the author states.
This distinction matters for debates about artificial intelligence replacing programmers. The author argues that resistance to claims about AI replacing developers stems partly from this artistic view. Even if AI could solve problems far faster than humans, people who view programming as art would continue writing code by hand, line by line. “AI will never be able to take away their ability and desire to write code,” he contends.
The author draws a parallel to his own approach to writing, noting he avoids using AI because the process itself matters to him—the thinking that happens while writing, the editing decisions, the ideas that emerge. He values the emotional experience of creating something himself over simply obtaining a finished product. “For me, writing is art that I pursue regardless of money,” he writes, suggesting programmers who share this view about code feel similarly.
The core argument suggests that for some developers, programming’s value lies not in its utility or monetary return, but in the creative and intellectual process of making something work. This perspective remains relevant to ongoing conversations about technology’s impact on skilled professions.
Key facts
- The author initially pursued programming because he wanted to create new programs and products
- Over time, his focus shifted from creation to income generation
- The author distinguishes between developers motivated by pay and those motivated by the joy of coding itself
- According to the author, true programmers work on projects like open-source software that generate no income
- The author argues that even if AI could work faster than humans, people who view programming as art would continue coding by hand