But that is work he's produced. I'm not sure whether he's a particularly good sociologist/chronicler of hacker culture or not, but that work should be judged on its own merits. Is it good sociology/history, or is it poorly done/inaccurate/done-better-elsewhere? I don't think looking at the quality of his C code is a particularly useful way of answering that question. I mean, some minimal technical knowledge is probably necessary to do a good job at it, but beyond that I'm not sure if there's good correlation between awesome-coder and great-chronicler.
I think what people are up in arms about, is that ESR calls himself a hacker—and most hackers, being programmers as well, think of hacking as referring to a particular kind of programming. These hackers, thus, form their meritocratic scale of "hackerlyness" around programming ability.
> Hacking might be characterized as 'an appropriate application of ingenuity'. Whether the result is a quick-and-dirty patchwork job or a carefully crafted work of art, you have to admire the cleverness that went into it. An important secondary meaning of hack is 'a creative practical joke'. This kind of hack is easier to explain to non-hackers than the programming kind. Of course, some hacks have both natures.
If this is how ESR defines "hacking", then his claim to be a hacker is not, also, an implicit claim that he is a good programmer (that one must then refute.) He simply claims to "apply ingenuity" and "joke around"—which, it's pretty clear from the OP link, he does, in the medium of prose.
> I think what people are up in arms about, is that ESR calls himself a hacker—and most hackers, being programmers as well, think of hacking as referring to a particular kind of programming.
Not a certain kind of programming. Just programming in general. I think in most people's minds, the concept "hacker" implicitly includes the concept "programmer."
