> Money trumps everything else in capitalism. Getting money means paying your bills today. And even more so than skill, quality and code getting money requires kowtowing and overpromising to someone who currently has money.
That has little to do with what makes development and a lot more to do with capitalism, business, and markets. What this really means is that current business environments don't necessarily value development, but that doesn't change the definition of development. At this point, you're not discussing a good developer, but a person who can hybridize development and business sense. It's a different skillset, perhaps one that's somewhat contradictory to high quality development, even.
There are situations in which there is no money at all, yet you absolutely need good development skills and they are distinguishable (open source). Any given person can be devoted to selling, whether they're coding or weaving baskets, but that doesn't suddenly mean that a core factor of weaving baskets is being able to sell them. It's not. That's a different skill set entirely. It may often not be found side by side.
It's a shame that we are so obsessed with money and selling right now that pure skills seem to have little value to some people, despite the fact that many crucial things nonetheless run off of these core skills...
This argument is equivalent to saying that only applied science has value.
All you say is true. And yet, if you don't get paid for doing open source you're probably spending more time of the week worrying about money than good code.
What do you think about the argument that once you have handled the money topic well enough, then you can worry about quality. I.e. first you make a basket business that earns enough money so you don't ever have to work again. Then you try to improve the process and result of making baskets as a hobby.
That has little to do with what makes development and a lot more to do with capitalism, business, and markets. What this really means is that current business environments don't necessarily value development, but that doesn't change the definition of development. At this point, you're not discussing a good developer, but a person who can hybridize development and business sense. It's a different skillset, perhaps one that's somewhat contradictory to high quality development, even.
There are situations in which there is no money at all, yet you absolutely need good development skills and they are distinguishable (open source). Any given person can be devoted to selling, whether they're coding or weaving baskets, but that doesn't suddenly mean that a core factor of weaving baskets is being able to sell them. It's not. That's a different skill set entirely. It may often not be found side by side.
It's a shame that we are so obsessed with money and selling right now that pure skills seem to have little value to some people, despite the fact that many crucial things nonetheless run off of these core skills...
This argument is equivalent to saying that only applied science has value.