Not to rant or single you out, but I'm not sure that "programmer" is a sufficient descriptor in this thread anymore since everyone seems to have their own little definition, and I'd argue that solving real world problems is only one of many attributes of "real programming".
Is game programming solving a problem? What about music visualizers? They're both fun distractions, but to call them "problems" is stretching the definition. What about malicious programming efforts? What about using programming languages for the challenge of it (brainfuck, whitespace, etc)?
Refusing to use anything but lisp may make you a poor candidate as an employee or teammate or entrepreneur or whatever, but says nothing about your ability to use lisp effectively.
Game programming, music visualizers solve the problem "Make something people want".
> What about using programming languages for the challenge of it (brainfuck, whitespace, etc)?
I think this is one reason lots of programmers get into a rut where they only want to use a specific language and get depressed using anything else. Using a programming language for the challenge of it is good fun, but it's not really a worthwhile use of effort often.
I agree, 'programmer' has many definitions, but at the end of the day, we "program" to make a product that we or others can use. How that product is made and what tools were used isn't that important. It's the fact it's made at all that matters.
Is game programming solving a problem? What about music visualizers? They're both fun distractions, but to call them "problems" is stretching the definition. What about malicious programming efforts? What about using programming languages for the challenge of it (brainfuck, whitespace, etc)?
Refusing to use anything but lisp may make you a poor candidate as an employee or teammate or entrepreneur or whatever, but says nothing about your ability to use lisp effectively.