Well, of course. Only companies with fuck-you money can afford the extra bytes spaces take up versus tabs, so it follows logically that they'd pay their developers more.
I'd also like to see an analysis of space-vs-tabs as it relates to operating systems. Again, from anecdotal experience, it seems spaces are more common for folks with *nix background who tend to work in product-oriented companies (i.e. where code is an asset) and tabs are more common with windows folks, who tend to work on IT (i.e. where code is liability)
Case in point - I use the default Visual Studio settings which are spaces, BUT they weren't always. I remember as recently as 2008 tabs were the default.
I've mostly only ever worked in Windows environments with the odd linux machine here and there, but mostly Windows, I've worked in both I.T. and product-oriented shops. I've mostly favored spaces. I've never been questioned it or asked to do differently. Generally speaking, those that care about the money, don't give a fuck about whether I use tabs or spaces. I've worked in tight-ass shops that have nickeled and dimed for every cent savings and I've worked for shops flush with cash to pay developers to do it right.
In my actual experience, I've never seen any relation to tabs vs. spaces with regards to being paid more. Nobody that has ever paid me for what I do has cared about which I use, nor have they questioned it.
One thing I have noticed in programmers are an asset vs. programmers are a liability is that companies who understand that automation is going to extend their profitability by more of a margin than it costs them will pay you what you're worth. Those that view programming as a sunk cost, that just makes their lives easier or cuts costs will pay you what they can get away with.
Don't work for a company that views you as a cost centre. Work for a company that views you as a profit centre. The work will be more meaningful. You will be more fulfilled. You will most likely be less stressed and you will most certainly be appreciated and respected more.
You got it backwards. In companies that sell code, code is an asset. In companies that sell services code is a necessary evil.
If you're a software developer and you're part of the "IT" department, then you're a liability. Your code is a necessary evil.
If you're not part of the "IT" department, then you're working in a product-oriented environment where the company is selling your code (either as a good or as a service) or otherwise making money from the code. In that case, your code is an asset.
It's official: science proves that highly paid tab users just don't need it.
they are publishing a very limited, informal, unscientific, survey and having fun drawing outlandish conclusions.
if you think this was serious in any way you may want to bring back pirates to counter global warming.
I'm impartial to downvoting as to reply literally doesn't usually add to the conversation, which is generally the point of downvoting. Losing karma shouldn't hurt your feelings.
Agreed, this is why I didn't want to take a hard position on downvoting someone for missing the sarcasm. We're in a public forum which crosses cultural boundaries. I see the argument for both sides.
Although I lean more towards downvoting as the majority of people on HN will get the joke and it's an opportunity to learn for those unfamiliar with the mainstream culture.