I agree.

>>> I don't have a GitHub page, nor do I have an interest in having one.

Glad I'm not the only one.

>>> I don't care about hackathons or solving puzzles.

Couldn't have been said any better. I never produce anything good when its tightly timed, under pressure, when people are watching over you.

>>> I hate the term 'nerd' or 'geek'. I am neither and I find the terms insulting.

Add "ninja", "guru", "rockstar" and other hipster name floating around these days to your list. I hate it too.

I've been doing programming for 3 years on and off. I program for fun, as a hobby and I can't see myself programming to meet unrealistic deadlines year in year out for someone, that's my personal opinion. I grew up in an athletic environment so I also play rugby and sprint for fun too. The most I would do is to program small projects at my own pace and share them to people or keep it to myself. I hate rushing into things which I feel hackathons encourage.I like to think, research, think and then create.

I program because I generally like making things, not just programs but also technical drawing, house designs (architectural and interior) and custom-modded computer builds , it has no correlation to solving puzzles or cramming algorithms I probably will never use.

Edit: There is this insanely think barrier filled with confusion in Human Resources, as a recent Computer Science graduate, some of the job descriptions have unimaginably high expectations for entry positions I actually think you have no place here if you don't know 4+ languages, 2+ trendy frameworks, and 1-2 years of experience from a fresh graduate.

I wish programming culture didn't scare away people who enjoy athletics. I love playing basketball and sometimes it's hard to find other programmers who enjoy the same.

When I see "Ninja", "rockstar", etc. I run. Can't stand that.

What's wrong with "excellent programmer"?

Other fields seem to have managed to solve this problem without resorting to sophomoric faux-titles. It just reeks of childishness and the sort of tomfoolery that tends to get our profession laughed at.

When I see these words, it screams either "bunch of young kiddies" or "a bunch of olds desperately trying to seem cool" and neither are situations that I want to get involved with.

And all of this isn't even getting into the problem that 99.9% of people want rockstars, ninjas, jedi and superheroes but only about 0.1% really need them.

Why do we need to give programmers such punchy titles? I haven't heard anyone doing this in any other craft. In my view, calling someone a good, great, excellent, skilled, or top programmer as appropriate is more than adequate.

I am not arguing that programmers need to have "punchy" titles at all. However, others clearly that some sort of term beyond those you listed is necessary, and these names are evidence of that.

There is no need for those terms. They are marketing names dreamed up by people who think they can neuro-linguistically trick developers into thinking working for them (usually for less money than they are worth), then they can get over on them.

Again, what is the difference between a doctor who is one of the best in the world versus a doctor who is just 'decent'? What is the term that is necessary to describe that doctor that doesn't exist? Why would any profession be any different?

I don't think I'd even want to go to "Dr WhateverName, Ninja Orthopedic Surgeon" or want to know that he wrote "Secrets of a rotator cuff repair rockstar."

I just say they are world class programmers. Or excellent. There is no problem. How do you describe doctors who are very good at what they do? Do you call them ninjas? "Med nerds"?

You're claiming there is a problem here that doesn't exist. We have words to describe people who are good at what they do.

We need more of this. I played baseball and basketball and yes, I also played chess. I'm not an introvert (although I do love alone time). This narrow idea of what traits a good programmer has is the fault of Eric Raymond who when describing what kind of person is a good hacker was clearly just describing himself (interested in martial arts, plays a musical instrument and speaks a foreign language, all perfectly great interests but what makes them better than cooking or chess or painting?). While it's great to have hobbies that involve critical thinking, nothing about the going stereotype of a programmer is necessary to be a good programmer or good thinker.

Imagine if there was an equally narrow stereotype about what kind of person is a good doctor or lawyer. Doesn't that seem ridiculous? What about programming is different? Nothing. It seems so absurd to me that as an industry we're telling interested parties that diverse interests are a bad thing if you're a programmer and you should just stick to a short list of approved interests. No wonder there's no diversity in our field.

I wish I had more than one upvote to give.

I work with a bunch of smart programmers who would, by the "if you aren't a 12 year old coder and you don't spend all your free time buffing your github profile" metric that pops up on HN, be unemployable. They are deeply, deeply clever people who speak assembler like a second language (or understand the bits of the JVM that most people don't think about, or what have you). They have lives outside their job.