I have to say, I think everybody will learn to code in the future. It teaches logical thinking, which we just don't have enough of in today's society. And with the explosion of computers, it's going to be a handy skill; just like there are tons of amateur mechanics who can do a few things on their car but they can't do a complete overhaul.
Please don't learn to code
211–220 of 273 posts
Re: Please don't learn to code
#212I really, really disagree with Jeff Atwood here. Jeff has interpreted "learn to code" with "become a programmer". They're not the same thing. I don't think that is what this meme is about at all. Programming is logical thinking in practise. Programming is breaking a problem set down, thinking step by step through it, thinking of edge cases, and making it work. There is nothing wrong with Jeff's BASIC example, if that…
>There is nothing wrong with Jeff's BASIC example, if that is where the mayor of NYC ends up. Are you sure about it? What if he suddenly starts thinking that he actually knows what goes into building software? I have this horror scene in my mind where Bloombergs of this world are terrorizing their developers, with their "deep knowledge" of computers that they picked up by doing an online JavaScript course, I mean "co…
Keep in mind how Bloomberg made the majority of his wealth. He has an idea of how software and hardware are made, deployed, and updated.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bottomline, programming teaches us a lot of important skills and mental constructs useful for problem-solving and understanding how the world works. And those skills are hard to get elsewhere. I definitely support the notion that everyone should learn problem solving skills, but people can take different paths than programming: mathematics, natural sciences, and even chess, for example. As Richard Rusczyk, founder of…
> I definitely support the notion that everyone should learn problem solving skills, but people can take different paths than programming: mathematics, natural sciences, and even chess, for example. I agree, though you'd have to go far over the school level of maths to get such benefits. Also, given that CS is a part of math, you can't avoid it if you want to learn some mental structures - we actually DID invent a ne…
[...] you'd have to go far over the school level of maths to get such benefits.
Not at all. Even deriving the formula for the sum of the first n positive integers is something that requires problem solving skills while not requiring more than school-level maths.
Also, given that CS is a part of math, you can't avoid it if you want to learn some mental structures [...] by all means study math, but catching a bit of CS knowledge and programming skills at some point should be a natural consequence of it.
Huh? Physics is more a part of mathematics than computer science is. And I don’t understand what you mean by “mental structures”.
we actually DID invent a new way of thinking in the last 100 years
Could you explain what you mean by that?
Anyway, my point was that you can’t argue that everyone should learn programming just because it’s a way to learn problem solving.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not trying to be facetious, just misunderstanding whatever point original commenter is making. "Most people don't what programming even looks like"? I don't think that is true because most people can search for code samples if needed.
You seem to be a bit disconnected from reality. If I told any one of my friends who are not programmers by trade to look for code samples, they would either not understand what I'm talking about, or simply not know where to look. Most people don't even have the slightest idea what kind of problems software can solve. Jeff Atwood seems to interpret "learn to code" as "learn to set the DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH variable". Othe…
Most people don't even have the slightest idea what kind of problems software can solve.
I was once told by a good friend of mine in industry X[1] that people in that industry have money but they don't know whats possible - they don't know what could be automated or calculated with computers and so they don't do it, even though it would provide a lot of value to them.
[1] In general, I think the industry is irrelevant and this applies to most industries that don't already directly employ programmers. There are often already some high tech firms that do and they have a huge advantage over the masses that don't. In this particular case, the industry was the betting (horses) industry and there are actually plenty of firms that are high tech and hire programmers and mathematicians and such to create complex software, but I think his point is that there are still a lot of smaller firms and people who spend a lot of money that still don't know what is actually possible. He since moved to a much more high tech company, but he still does most (if not all) of his complex risk assessment modeling in excel.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#215Programmer Hierarchy: Level 0: (Many bosses I have had) Level 1: "Hello World" Level 2: Does something Level 3: Updates a data base Level 4: Solves a little problem Level 5: Produces value Level 6: Sidetracks other programmers to maintain Level 7: Provides a platform for other value producers Level 8: Solves big problems Level 9: Still produces value years later Everyone should get past Level 0. If you're going to ge…
Classical programmer fallacy: equating cleverness with value. There are plenty of level 3 cheesy little Access and VB apps that any "serious" programmer would laugh that that are level 5 or 9 on your scale.
That's true. This should have two axes (at least). One with "domain specific knowledge" and other one with "programming expertise".
Indeed, when domain experts reach some arbitrary level of programming expertise, many good things may happen.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure anyone here could do that. But how many people here are looking for a non technical co-founder? Coders are solving their own problems, and until I can hack together a prototype I don't think I'll be able to draw any attention from real programmers.
I think I'd actually prefer a pure domain expert who can express their business and ideas well than a half-assed programmer. No offence, but what often ends up happening is you turn into a know-it-all client. "This should only take an hour. You just have to loop over these results and format them...". Finding a technical co-founder is a sales process where you need to prove that it's a good idea and that you've made…
> you need to prove that it's a good idea and that you've made a significant investment yourself ... like thinking through the interface, and as many use cases / stories as you can think of, and describing in detail the problem(s) being solved.
That sounds exactly like the skillset of a good software engineer. This whole debate is about the fact that a whole bunch of people don't know how to break down a large problem into small logical pieces.
"describing in detail the problem(s) being solved" is about the most concise and accurate description of programming I can think of. Asking someone non-technical to do this is like asking a ramen noodle-eater to describe in detail the process of flambéing Steak Diane.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
I acknowledge you know a lot more about Hieroglyphics than me. But my comments were based on the understanding that it was really the development of an alphabet by the Phoenicians that took writing from an obscure system to something usable by every day people. Maybe this isn't the case? Also English is widely acknowledged to be a very expressive language compared to, say, Swedish which has a sparser every day vocabu…
I'm sorry there is no evidence that a particular language is 'better' than any other. All human languages have very similar every day vocabularies - English happens (now) to have a very large specialist vocabulary (which wasn't available to Shakespeare) and which it actually shares with most other languages. Shakespeare got his vocab up by generating a host of new English words from French, Latin and the other domina…
> All human languages have very similar every day vocabularies
My point is really that languages and alphabets are tools and some tools make certain jobs easier. You could write a website in assembly, but its easier in Rails. However, I suspect our ancestors will look back at Rails and have similar feelings to us when we look back at ancient writing systems now.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There is nothing wrong with Jeff's BASIC example, if that is where the mayor of NYC ends up. Are you sure about it? What if he suddenly starts thinking that he actually knows what goes into building software? I have this horror scene in my mind where Bloombergs of this world are terrorizing their developers, with their "deep knowledge" of computers that they picked up by doing an online JavaScript course, I mean "co…
Keep in mind how Bloomberg made the majority of his wealth. He has an idea of how software and hardware are made, deployed, and updated.
Bloomberg = a hypothetical non-techy boss
Re: Please don't learn to code
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, all programs sort of get reduced to 1s and 0s. Given this fact, I don't consider the idea of coding only with the letter 's' that much of a stretch. You know, in lisp I code with parentheses!
I know you're joking and this isn't really too relevant to your comment at all, but the 1s and 0s thing that non-techies fixate on is just stupid. Programming (and computers in general) have nothing to do with 1s and 0s and saying stuff like "at the end of the day, its all 1s and 0s" is like saying that at the end of the day banking just comes down to scrap pieces of pressed tree pulp or a bakers job is just about a…
For the record, I was mostly serious. I was half-joking about the Lisp part. This is not really related to your comment, but just to clarify: I'm serious that coding using just 's' doesn't sound that unreasonable. If you're a professional programmer, sure, you know you need more characters than that to be productive. But I wouldn't fault a lay-person, even one who has some knowledge of coding, for believing someone who said they programmed using only 's'. Plenty of weird programming languages are possible. Take a look at http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Reverse_a_string#Brainf.2A.2A.2A.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
To turn your statement around, are you saying that no one should bother learning first aid unless they are planning on becoming a medical professional?
I am trying to say there is a distinction between those who are trained professionals and those who have basic knowledge. I am getting the feeling people are taking this issue personally. If you want to become a trained professional, please do so. As for me, I have paid my dues and consider myself one.
Well, it is your camp that is equating "learning programming" with "becoming a programmer."
I don't know why you should feel threatened or defensive about the fact that a lot of people want to understand your basic skill set. I don't know many mechanical engineers who discourage people from learning to fix their own cars.