...What? Delete. Garrett Albright 14:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Incomprehensible. Delete. Terrapin 14:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Rewrite. Real programmer is an actual phrase, and the story of Mel is very popular among programmers on the internet, but this article is somewhat incoherent and very poorly written.-PlasmaDragon 15:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- C Agreed. "Real programmers use $tool" is a common occurrence. Needs rewriting, send to Cleanup. Chris 15:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Semi-notable, old expression. However, Wikipedia is not the Jargon File. jni 16:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Rewrite seconded. Few entries in Jargon File are as mythological in character. Taken from modern techno-mythological perspective this fits. Certainly should reference Jargon File but needs more flesh. Plaintext 17:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Article is written informally and provides no actual information other than a link. Wording suggests that the author wrote it in response to an article request, which could possibly have actually been a request for an article on another subject. So, does Wikipedia need an article called "Real Programmer" at all? If this is the requested subject matter, it's just an old story that readers can easily get elsewhere, and it doesn't appear to have achieved an encyclopedic level of notability. A mention at Hacker culture or somewhere like that might be warranted. (Note that this story is already linked from Drum memory.) If the request was for a rewriting of the Jargon File entry, or any other opinion on what makes a programmer a "real" programmer, then it's POV. If the request was to describe the use of these words in the context of the phrase "Real programmers use X", I don't see how that's encyclopedic, and in any case it's just a specific variation of a general cliche, "Real X do Y" ("Real men love Jesus", and so forth), and should be discussed in an article of that nature if absolutely necessary. If the request was for something unrelated—perhaps some proper noun, since both words are capitalized—then let that article be created without this unrelated text cluttering its history. —Triskaideka 19:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or Rewrite with less reliance on specific works. Gazpacho 21:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs cleanup obviously. Charming story if you follow the links - well, I liked it. Might clean it up myself if no-one more techically able rises to the challenge.--Tomheaton 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Let the Jargon.org folk keep this kind of cruft. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 06:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep, although needs help —siroχo 09:05, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Subtrivial hackercruft? Wikipedia is not the Jargon File; while I don't vote against articles for being covered by the Jargon File per se, this has no potential to become encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 21:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, send to cleanup. Modern mythology. Worst case dictdef -> wiktionary. Note that "Real Programmer" is often perjorative. Real programmers don't eat quiche. :-) Kim Bruning 15:13, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Intrigue 20:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep or move to Talk:Real Programmer. List on cleanup. anthony (see warning) 16:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, send to Clean Up, leave notes about this on all the programming related talk pages, etc. Very notable. It is a common and important phrase that deserves explaination. (In fact, I'll make contributing to this one my top priority tomorrow) func(talk) 03:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Hey, "they use vi" is utterly POV ;-) I'll NPOV it to cat.
(No editor wars intended, but note that with a little practice, folks using vi or emacs tend to work dang fast! Emacs has quick key combos, and vi has your fingers on the home keys most of the time.) Kim Bruning 10:02, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- It's not POV, it's an example. Christ. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:06, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)
- A very pov example too! Oh how I wish for an <irony> tag. O:-) Kim Bruning 14:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Real men don't use cat, real men use toggle switches
Stupid but funny
OK, this article is stupid. But it's also funny. Depending on how funny WP wants to be, keep it or delete it.
But I must take exception to the following quote from the Book of Mel:
Real Programmers wrote in machine code. Not FORTRAN. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language. Machine Code. Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers. Directly.
Wikipedia was so much better like 2 years ago without NPOV and deletion policies.
- Seriously. If I wanted "facts" I'd go buy a real encyclopedia. WP was much better when it was an assemblage of semi-random edits made by highly knowledgeable people. Nowadays, highly knowledgeable people won't bother to make any edits because they're too busy to get into edit wars and snark-fests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Ageism in Article
The article is riddled with ageism, it seems to imply that modern languages are not used by older programmers, which is of course totally untrue, since most programmers are required to learn new languages as they go along. I notice that no serious study or reference has been given for the 'opinions' voiced in the article. So what? Old programmers are scum, everyone knows it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)