251–260 of 273 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing that programming could solve a problem requires knowledge of programming. Someone with zero programming experience doesn't look at a problem and say, "Yeah I can write a script to solve that."
The guy below said it before me. I have seen things that could be handled with a good programmer, and I am not one just yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are very wrong about this - people who know how to "search for code samples" know what programming looks like, but they are far from the majority. I, for one, wish more people understood what programming "looks like", so that I could actually talk to people about what I do without them being completely confused. People can visualize what nearly every other profession does day-to-day, but what programmers do is a…
> People can visualize what nearly every other profession does day-to-day No they don't. They know an architect draws pictures of buildings. An engineer draws pictures of a bridge and hammers away at a calculator (actually the first thing most people think of with engineer is probably either boats or trains or Star Trek). A banker sits and acts like a total dick. What architects, engineers and bankers really do is a…
"I keep computers working" and "I write computer programs" are on opposite sides of a conceptual understanding chasm - most people have tried keeping computers working, even if they hated it and failed miserably, but most people haven't tried programming, and don't really know what the concept means.
I 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…
With a couple of months of programming knowledge, I wrote a program that saved my company $2MM/year. The key was combining knowledge of the business processes with some knowledge of programming. There were people with knowledge of one or the other, but not both. I still can't write a basic app, but that doesn't matter. I can do things that provide massive value, and I wouldn't be able to do them without programming k…
If somebody comes to you with a problem and the first thing you say is "Oh, yes, of course, just let me start coding." then something is probably going to go wrong with your project. Understand what the problem is, build a model, show it to the person asking, most of the time this person doesn't really know what he wants.
You are all misunderstanding Atwood's article. Think about this: a variable in a programming language isn't really a variable, it's a name for a certain space in memory. Variables exist only in mathematical logic. Mind blown.
I would whole-heartedly disagree. I think that everybody should at be proficient in as many practical skills as possible - an in depth knowledge is not required, simply a level of competency and an understanding of good practices and standards.
This applies to coding, plumbing, cooking, construction/DIY, auto repair, soldering and practically any skill that may come in handy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really know what your argument is, except that you somehow think I'm revising my comment "trying to paint a new context" and even "building a strawman" to boot. Yet you offer no explanations for these very rude remarks. The parts in my comments about cooking, 10 hours pr week, and the short list of subjects, are all merely examples. Replace it with car repair, 2 hours a week and your informative list of schoo…
Car repair, 2 hours a week for a quarter or so would be an excellent use of most students' time (with minor the exception of people who live in the biggest cities and never drive). You're missing the point of the people rebutting your argument, which is that cooking, programming, car repair, and many other day-to-day subjects are more important than many of the subjects that you take for granted as being necessary.
The argument was that a very high proficiency in reading, writing and maths has more value for the average student, than a very high proficiency in a niche subject. A nice subject being FOR EXAMPLE, cooking, car repair or programming.
Sure, our students might benefit from these subjects. But I doubt anyone would seriously suggest giving the same level of educational focus to those areas, rather than to basic life skills such as reading and writing.
And that is Atwood's point: Programming, like car repair, is an esoteric subject, and as such not equal in worth compared to more basic skills such as reading, writing and communication. By all means, subjects such as cooking, car repair and programming is good to know. But for the average student, a high level in reading will be considerably more important than a high proficiency in car repair.
This is the point (and that's actually Atwood's point, I haven't supplied mine), which I was merely explaining to the OP, as the OP interpreted the blog post as being against learning programming at all.
A couple of people countered by argumenting against irrelevant details, such as the use of cooking and car repairs as examples of esoteric subjects. They even started arguing the value of the specific examples compared to the basic skills, which of course is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
I just realized that the only way in which Jeff's argument has value is the context of a large organization with managers relating to programmers.
That is, managers should not take the view that their learning to code is going to make them better managers of programmers. It just makes them capable of second guessing their programmers, not really that useful. Even here, its not really that you shouldn't know how to code but that you shouldn't assume that some small or large acquaintance with coding lets you quibble with a structure someone else has taken months to work out. But even here, it might seem like the "skill" required is "not knowing how to program" but really it's not second guessing someone (with enough ego or desperation, a completely unskilled manager may second guess you too and then things get nasty).
So that's what might inspire this unfortunate rant. But the rant itself is just plain wrong.
How about learning to distinguish bad code from good code?
How about learning to look at Atwood's code with a view to answering some questions: 1. How does this guy's mind work? 2. Can he think clearly or does he add needless complexity to everything?
Then making a decision whether you want to use his work or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy below said it before me. I have seen things that could be handled with a good programmer, and I am not one just yet.
But you have knowledge of programming, correct? Or are you saying you have absolutely no idea how to program?
Become a programmer, by all means.
But please do not become another Jeff Atwood.