devizen wrote an article entitled "Programming Can Ruin Your Life".  While certainly accurate in its description of a programmer who is obsessive about his craft (to the point of negative consequence), I think its attempt to instigate "Programming" as a potential cause of a "ruined life" is quite misguided.  Only at the end of the essay, as almost a footnote, does the author entertain some doubt in their previous tone of certainty.  Here was my response: 

Since I am a programmer by trade, the following opinion I am about to give may evoke statements such as “Only a mediocre programmer would say such a thing!” from programmers that identify themselves in the above essay.  That's unfortunate.

An artist can be just as obsessed with the goal of a “perfect” creation of art as a programmer can be obsessed with the goal of a “perfect” creation of code. Granted, the “ground rules” differ immensely between the two; that is to say, in programming, the boundaries are clearer and narrower than they are in art. However, art and programming are both very creative endeavors, at least at this point in technology.

My overall point is that obsession is obsession regardless of medium, and I think what the author of this essay is indirectly addressing is the misery of OCD/Perfectionism and/or other similar psychological disorders (yes, I personally believe that everyone has some degree, however slight, of one or more psychological disorders as defined by APA criteria).

I think the idea that “Programming Can Ruin Your Life” is an example of the logical fallacy “Correlation Proves Causation”. The title of this essay is an understandable assumption as I think a large percentage of people with a notable degree of OCD/Perfectionism and/or other similar psychological disorders are naturally drawn to computers (also, specifically, programming), and therefore many programmers end up suffering the side effects of obsession-driven creation. Programming is simply the medium in this case.

I also disagree with part of the author's closing statement that “[creating] anything great requires obsession”, unless by “great” the author means something approaching “revolutionary”.

Assuming the author doesn’t equate greatness to revolution, my (somewhat) inverse of that statement would be:

“Creating anything worthwhile does not require obsession, and the very fact is that if obsession is involved in its creation, then it is most certainly not worthwhile to the creator, however, it is often beneficial to society, and such obsession is arguably a cornerstone of innovation”.

Above, I use the term “worthwhile” in the context of “worthwhile to the benefit of one’s physiological and psychological self”. Also note that at times, the relief or pride* one feels after the obsession-driven creation is complete can feel like euphoria itself. But I propose that labeling such an after-effect as “worthwhile” is similar to characterizing “enjoyment” as the act of rolling a boulder off of one’s leg.

This is just my 2 cents. Please disregard any bad grammar.  I am a programmer after all. ;-)

* This is not to say that there cannot be true pride of accomplishment, but in obsession-driven creation, I doubt the pride would overshadow the relief, and if the pride is just a co-dependent “Wow, wait until [so-and-so|the world] sees this, they’ll think better of me, then” sentiment anyway, I would just label it as a relief [regarding one’s self esteem] instead of a healthy pride, such as self-confidence.