You didn't learn to program in 23 years or 10 weeks. I'm an employed CS grad, and I still don't "know" how to program. Don't mistake this as an "I'm a graduate that can't code" statement, but instead "You (should)never stop learning, and therefore can never concretely know how to program".
Likewise, if you know you like to code, then why didn't you start already? Is this just supposed to be a "look at me, I'm in dev bootcamp for ruby!" attention call? I'm confused.
The title (and I did hesitate on using it) grabs attention -- enough for you to be reading the article.
I stuck with it largely because I think the decision to learn to program is a culmination of my journey over the past 23 years.
And, I have actually learned to program over the last 3 months. Maybe I should have stated that in the article. I'm currently doing freelance front-end development.
"How It Took Me 23 Years To Learn To Code"
Good deal! It shouldn't take too long until you start hating ruby, so I'd suggest checking out python and jsp to make you a more versatile webdev. I'm a PHP guy (spare the insults guys... seriously) for personal projects but roll with groovy, coldfusion, and ruby at work. Also start looking into DB's like postgres and mysql. If you're looking for corporate job security, it's .net and mssql pretty much all the way.
Just because people want what you've built does not necessarily make it meaningful. Meaning is a very subjective, personal thing, based on your core values. What person x finds meaningful and is willing to pay for, person y may think is meaningless. So ask yourself whether you want to build something meaningful to you, based on your core values or do you just want to build the next hot game/app/whatever, and get rich. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but be honest with yourself.
I didn't read anything in that piece to justify such cynicism and condescension. The author's motivations seem to be anything but financial. It sounds to me like he's after inspiration on a more personal level.
Don't you think you're being a bit too meta-critical? That looks like a pretty straight forward list to me. The author wants to build things that are:
* Beautiful
* Meaningful (to him at least)
* Desired
I'll grant you that desirable does not always make something meaningful, and vice versa, but what does that have to do with anything? How is it -- in any way -- disingenuous to want to build meaningful things that are also desirable?
Hell, even if he's dead wrong about what's really "meaningful" to a significant population of people, it doesn't strike me as some fallacious goal. It seems like genuine good will.
That statement is a conflation of a YC/PG mantra, "make things people want" (http://paulgraham.com/good.html), and that of Dev Bootcamp "build beautiful, meaningful things." They may be opposing things, but I tend to think that meaningful things are those that have impact on others. You're right, even if it has meaning, people may not want it.
Although, I think the end of a great start up/company/person may be an achievement of both.
