The difference is that I don't type on the keyboard under the pretense that I am somehow particularly innovative in doing so. It's not even a question about the "earliest forms of hardware" or discoveries, it's about software that you directly use to make your work possible.
From your post I gather:
- You built a web application with some client side logic
- You didn't use any external dependencies (except, say, the web browser and its API specifically designed for this purpose)
- You taught yourself language parsing (a widely understood and documented problem)
- You architected some solution to couple data to a user interface, (like every other web developer before what, 2006?)
I'm not saying that this isn't impressive or interesting, and I'm not questioning your ingenuity in the absence of communication, but with respect to the argument that you innovated in a vacuum, where's the innovation and what's the vacuum?
My point is that if you had been able to communicate and collaborate with other developers and had a good idea of what problems were already solved and what problems needed to be solved, you might have turned that ingenuity into useful innovation rather than new wheels.
> My point is that if you had been able to communicate and collaborate with other developers and had a good idea of what problems were already solved and what problems needed to be solved, you might have turned that ingenuity into useful innovation rather than new wheels.
My point is that if you ask nearly any web or JavaScript developer everything new is always "a reinvented wheel". I do mean always. Most of these guys need a popular framework just to turn on their monitors and even when you take the framework away they generally consider any code written still some kind of a framework.
This isn't a technology problem it is a social problem of bad developers striving for normalcy when everything they see is "invented here" syndrome. The fastest way to solve for that problem is to separate yourself from trends and socially acceptable approaches. You have to keep those opinions to yourself though, because it shines a spotlight on peoples' insecurities.
I have spent nearly the entirety of my career learning this the hard way. Most developers don't want to be expert rockstars. They want to be employable. Urban centers are where you go to increase your chances of employment. You can innovate from anywhere.
> My point is that if you ask nearly any web or JavaScript developer everything new is always "a reinvented wheel". I do mean always. Most of these guys need a popular framework just to turn on their monitors and even when you take the framework away they generally consider any code written still some kind of a framework.
So this is about web or Javascript developers, not about the ideal conditions for innovation? It seems we're heading off topic.
> This isn't a technology problem it is a social problem of bad developers striving for normalcy when everything they see is "invented here" syndrome. The fastest way to solve for that problem is to separate yourself from trends and socially acceptable approaches.
How do you go about deliberately separating yourself from trends and socially acceptable approaches without knowing the current trends and socially acceptable approaches? The only other way I can think of is to stumble around re-inventing obvious things until you accidentally invent something new.
> You have to keep those opinions to yourself though, because it shines a spotlight on peoples' insecurities.
Maybe look for a different job? Perhaps one that isn't basically just about creating GUI-to-API bindings, a problem that has been solved so many times it isn't even funny?
> I have spent nearly the entirety of my career learning this the hard way. Most developers don't want to be expert rockstars. They want to be employable. Urban centers are where you go to increase your chances of employment. You can innovate from anywhere.
I don't doubt that you can innovate from anywhere. The question is whether innovation is at least partly a social process. You use yourself as an example to the contrary but IMO the example fails to prove your point. I have explained why I think so but you haven't really responded with a convincing argument as to why you are a good example of this.
That is merely my experience perspective. The ideal conditions for innovation are the problems you are willing to solve for.
> How do you go about deliberately separating yourself from trends and socially acceptable approaches...
You solve for valid problems that you encounter (or are brought to you) opposed to dreaming up imaginary problems to solve for. This is the kind of madness that YCombinator says to never do: invent a business problem merely to start a business. Trends are not problems you encounter. They are reactionary marketplace hysteria.
> Maybe look for a different job?
I enjoy writing software. I am not going to give this up because there are a lot of insecure developers who frequently whine and cry, as frustrating as that is.
> The question is whether innovation is at least partly a social process.
The question was whether movement to cities is important because innovation is a social process. I am merely suggesting that innovation is better when not dictated by social processes therefore the whole conversation about cities is completely orthogonal. People move to cities for employment, not for innovation.
Yes, but your perspective as a Javascript developer and what else software development wise?
> The ideal conditions for innovation are the problems you are willing to solve for.
Care to elaborate? If the problems I'm willing to solve have already been solved, how would that make for ideal conditions, for example?
> You solve for valid problems that you encounter (or are brought to you) opposed to dreaming up imaginary problems to solve for. This is the kind of madness that YCombinator says to never do: invent a business problem merely to start a business. Trends are not problems you encounter. They are reactionary marketplace hysteria.
What do you have to go by, in isolation, other than your imagination?
> I enjoy writing software. I am not going to give this up because there are a lot of insecure developers who frequently whine and cry, as frustrating as that is.
No, I mean, where do you even work where your coworkers whine and cry over your solutions? Sounds like a really shitty workplace. There are plenty of jobs writing software where this isn't the case. If you really want, there are entire categories of software development jobs where people would roll their eyes if you introduced a dependency for a 1000-line problem and rather re-invent everything, possibly finding novel ways to do it along the way. As a Javascript developer you're currently in a profession where the state of the art is to use hundreds of dependencies to scratch your earlobes, with a low enough barrier of entry that there are people making a living off of it having no idea how to use it outside Angular or React.
> The question was whether movement to cities is important because innovation is a social process. I am merely suggesting that innovation is better when not dictated by social processes therefore the whole conversation about cities is completely orthogonal. People move to cities for employment, not for innovation.
I agree that the conversation about moving to cities is completely orthogonal. What I don't agree with is that innovation isn't a social process, "not even one bit". I think I've made this clear, and I think I've made my argument clear.
From your post I gather:
- You built a web application with some client side logic
- You didn't use any external dependencies (except, say, the web browser and its API specifically designed for this purpose)
- You taught yourself language parsing (a widely understood and documented problem)
- You architected some solution to couple data to a user interface, (like every other web developer before what, 2006?)
I'm not saying that this isn't impressive or interesting, and I'm not questioning your ingenuity in the absence of communication, but with respect to the argument that you innovated in a vacuum, where's the innovation and what's the vacuum?
My point is that if you had been able to communicate and collaborate with other developers and had a good idea of what problems were already solved and what problems needed to be solved, you might have turned that ingenuity into useful innovation rather than new wheels.