I like coder too, although non-techies often require further clarification. I prefer the more accessible (computer) programmer among those folks. As for hacker, I have to admit that I generally don't like how it's used. To me, hacking is utilizing a system or product in a manner unintended by its author, or tweaking a bit of code in order to serve a particular purpose of my own. I prefer the narrower definition over many other variations used to cover everything from ordinary computer geek to professional software developer. It think it also fits better definitionally with cracker as "one who hacks with criminal intent".

I've been called a Perl hacker several times, however writing, say, an OO layer over an RDBMS is not hacking in my book. Quite the opposite really. Now, tinkering with the innards of the DB module is hacking, but since by and large I'm more interested in playing nicely and by the rules, I don't feel compelled to call myself a hacker. I am a programmer/coder who sometimes has no choice but to hack ; )

Update: minor formatting changes.

I agree to an extent, but I have a few points which I'd like to add. First, the term hacker means different things to many different people, so I guess I'll give my definition. After reading Richard Stallman's biography (sort of), Free As In Freedom, I got a new (gnu? :P) perspective on the term. For one, I like your use saying that a hacker utilizes a systme or product, but I would replace 'unimplemented' for 'unintended'. There could be a number of reasons why functionality isn't in a software system, and unintended to me seems a bit restrictive. Also, RMS always (at least in the book) categorized himself as a hacker, but writing an OO layer over and RDBMS doesn't seem to be quite as complex as rolling your own C compiler suite (or say, writing your own language interpreter for a your new language based on C, sed, awk...you can see where I'm going), so complexity, scale and planning really wouldn't seem to be an issue either. The OO layer might be more structured, but really, writing a compiler and linker for a language that you didn't develop for a platform you didn't develop has its own inherent structure too. Again, that's just my recently-propagandized-by-his-book opinion, and I'll probably calm down about the subject in a few weeks.

That being said though, I'll leave the semantics to someone else and just stick with Perl hacker.

Also, RMS always (at least in the book) categorized himself as a hacker, but writing an OO layer over and RDBMS doesn't seem to be quite as complex as rolling your own C compiler suite (or say, writing your own language interpreter for a your new language based on C, sed, awk...you can see where I'm going)

Point taken with respect to project complexity, but I guess I just wouldn't call those types of projects 'hacking' ; )

...so complexity, scale and planning really wouldn't seem to be an issue either

Scale and complexity, no; planning, yes. To my mind, the critical difference between hacking and programming is the amount of structure and forethought that have gone into the undertaking. Now, RMS may want to call himself a hacker, and claim that all his software projects therefore are acts of hacking, but IMO this definition is too broad. That's why in my formulation I stress that hacking involves a deviation from author intent or preexisting structure of the codebase, or is just plain old screwing around.