Well, to be fair, there are many many many terrible examples of writers trying to write, as well. Sturgeon's Law says 95% of everything is crap. If one has the drive to write, they should try it. At worst, they've wasted some time, adding to the infinite pile of forgotten work. And at best, they might add something interesting to the world, with a different perspective than a writer's writer might bring.

Fwiw, this week I've been reading 'All Creatures Great and Small,' an autobiographical classic by a veterinary surgeon, and quite wonderfully written...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Herriot

And let's also remember that JM Coetzee, novel laureate in literature, began his career as a programmer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Coetzee

And Ted Chiang was a writer of software documentation, before becoming known for his sci fi stories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Chiang

> Comparing apples to apples, if the programmer dabbled in artmaking or writing, I'm confident they would get a similar reaction from accomplished artists or writers.

Yes, this is in-line with what I was, perhaps poorly, trying to articulate. The programmer dabbling in art may get a poor reaction from accomplished artists, much like the artist dabbling in programming may get a poor reaction from programmers.

But that same programmer who is dabbling in art may also get a good reaction from programmers, while that same artist dabbling in programming may also get a good reaction from other artists.

It's precisely that distinction between celebrating those who are in-discipline or in-group and deriding those are out out-discipline or in the out-group is what I am musing about.

It's not necessarily a tribal "in-group vs out-group" thing. If you're trying to impress programmers, you need to do good programming. If you're trying to impress artists, your need to do good art.