I agree with all of the sentiments in the article, but the one small thing that I do disagree with is the conflation of the word "creative" with what the author seems to indicate are artistic or graphical/visual disciplines.<p>I believe that all programming, whether or not it's graphical or "artistic" in nature, is creative. Development is just as much a craft as it is a logical discipline. Learning algorithms, data structures, and software engineering techniques is only half the battle. As "coders", we are knowledge workers. Our job is to solve a problem; the discipline of computer programming is nothing more than a tool that we use to solve our problems. And creative thinking can be utilized any time someone needs to solve a problem.<p>Most truly great programmers and/or computer scientists, at least in my opinion, held on to some level of creativity. Dijkstra never developed a single GUI in his life, but saying that the work he did wasn't "creative" would be insulting. You could say similar things about people such as von Neumann, or even more concrete computer scientists like Kay, Stroustrup, etc.<p>The idea that creativity is inherently tied to "emotional" pursuits like art, design, music, etc. is a little reductionist. Creativity, like programming, is a tool. It's the ability to enter a creative mindset and use creative thought processes to approach a problem, and it is also a refinable skill and not a trait. Creative thinking is just as approachable and general as critical thinking, but so often people who aren't "artistic" reduce themselves to also being not "creative", and I don't think that's very correct.<p>One of the best descriptions of creativity I've ever heard was in a talk delivered by John Cleese. If you have 30 minutes, I highly recommend watching it: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VShmtsLhkQg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VShmtsLhkQg</a>