Yes, it (often) is, and the set of "creative" occupations given are also (often) highly analytical activities. I don't think this is surprising to the programmers, at least -- "being able to create something from nothing" is often mentioned as a motivating factor for why programmers enjoy programming.
The article refers to code as the (creative) output of the programmer, but that doesn't seem right to me.
A picture you painted is not the same as the tautness of the canvas you painted it on. Sure, the canvas is important/critical, but it's not the work.
(the code isn't the thing the programmer is creating, even though it is literally the thing they are creating)
Unfortunately, the article doesn't really talk about "how to treat people who write code well" much at all, let alone with reference to the creativity of programm{ers,ing}. Most of the suggested accommodations are mentioned frequently elsewhere, and make just as much sense without mentioning creativity.
The exception is "Understand & manage the emotional impact of creation" which has a real point buried in it somewhere, but is just a short paragraph that mentions the "ikea effect" (SEO?) before making the bold claim that "All code typically has a short lifespan of a few years at most." which seems to suggest that the programmers are actually over-invested. Perhaps the programmers should set their expectations more appropriately and then be paid less.
Also, please don't tell my manager that I may have an emotional attachment to a particular line of code. I don't need that.
Thanks for your feedback. It's taken me forever to publish this - it's the first thing I've written online. To do so required clearing some major emotional hurdles!
I definitely plan to delve more into the emotional attachment side of coding in future articles!
The article refers to code as the (creative) output of the programmer, but that doesn't seem right to me. A picture you painted is not the same as the tautness of the canvas you painted it on. Sure, the canvas is important/critical, but it's not the work. (the code isn't the thing the programmer is creating, even though it is literally the thing they are creating)
Unfortunately, the article doesn't really talk about "how to treat people who write code well" much at all, let alone with reference to the creativity of programm{ers,ing}. Most of the suggested accommodations are mentioned frequently elsewhere, and make just as much sense without mentioning creativity. The exception is "Understand & manage the emotional impact of creation" which has a real point buried in it somewhere, but is just a short paragraph that mentions the "ikea effect" (SEO?) before making the bold claim that "All code typically has a short lifespan of a few years at most." which seems to suggest that the programmers are actually over-invested. Perhaps the programmers should set their expectations more appropriately and then be paid less.
Also, please don't tell my manager that I may have an emotional attachment to a particular line of code. I don't need that.