11–20 of 76 posts
(Or Reginald Braythewathe's term of " Clerical engineering work" )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java jobs are well paid and Javascript is the new BASIC. It's not a bad choice.
And C and Haskell teach you how to pick up those two in less than a week when you have mastered them. If your goal is not to have codemonkeys - you need to give the people skills to develop themselves further - which means knowing how computers work.
In that case, assembler is more appropriate.
Is it just me, or was the entire "question" in the article irrelevant? Like, yes just "learning to code" doesn't make you a good programmer. But just "learning to write" doesn't make you a good author either. You have to get an introduction and basic skills somewhere, even if most people will never go on to develop or profit from those skills.
Programming is an ART, not everyone can be Bach or Picasso even though most can slap paint on canvas or hit keys on a piano. It's actually a lot worse with software engineering because the end result doesn't only have aesthetic value but is an interconnected system that in many cases subsumes many facets of our everyday lives.
Software engineering is hard and requires intelligence, creativity and experience. Pretending that everyone can be a good/effective software engineer through training alone is supremely naive, actively encouraging this sort of society is extremely dangerous.
TL;DR There is no room for egalitarianism in software, it should be a meritocracy first and foremost, where the best are encouraged and those not cut out for it swiftly dropped from further participation. We have experienced what bad software engineers can do and the cost to society at large that they are directly responsible for. Let's not pretend that this new populist push will improve matters.
I was fortunate to have an uncle in IT who gifted me hand me down IBM PC hardware that my parents could not afford in the 80s. I was making more money in high school with stuff I was able to self teach than many of my "privleged" relatives in real adult jobs.
These coding initiatives are great, as they introduce kids to a whole new world of inspiration and discovery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And C and Haskell teach you how to pick up those two in less than a week when you have mastered them. If your goal is not to have codemonkeys - you need to give the people skills to develop themselves further - which means knowing how computers work.
> ...which means knowing how computers work. In that case, assembler is more appropriate.
It's always cute to hear school administrators (or any non-technical policy types) predict the future based upon superficial understanding of the underlying science and technology.
Code synthesis for fully specified and very simple programs is still considered a hard problem. Automating the entire software and product design process is fully AI hard.
Is it just me, or was the entire "question" in the article irrelevant? Like, yes just "learning to code" doesn't make you a good programmer. But just "learning to write" doesn't make you a good author either. You have to get an introduction and basic skills somewhere, even if most people will never go on to develop or profit from those skills.
Similarly, art and music, science and mathematics. Everyone should get some of this, though not all of us will become artists or musicians or scientists or mathematicians.
I think it's generally a good idea, though I wish they'd leave off the "of color" qualifier; there are plenty of white children from rural areas or working class communities who could also benefit from introductory coding.
I don't get the complaint that teaching Java and JavaScript puts them on the bottom rung. You have to learn on some programming language and those are as good as any, though starting on Java sounds painful.
I think he's implying that teaching them how to code and not how to design programs will be the new "vocational" equivalent. Although this issue seems like it just generally applies to the education system as a whole, not specific at all to coding... unless I'm missing some key point. Also, I think perhaps the issue is with allowing "coding" classes to qualify as math/science credits may encourage some students to es…
Is it just me, or was the entire "question" in the article irrelevant? Like, yes just "learning to code" doesn't make you a good programmer. But just "learning to write" doesn't make you a good author either. You have to get an introduction and basic skills somewhere, even if most people will never go on to develop or profit from those skills.
A computer programming class in K-12, or at least 9-12 high school curriculum, should be thought of as an introduction and not an end unto itself, i.e. this is a little taste of computer programming to whet kids' appetites and possibly lure in some who otherwise would never be exposed to the topic. Similarly, art and music, science and mathematics. Everyone should get some of this, though not all of us will become ar…
In fact, it's quite obvious that the way it's being presented (by president Obama among others) is exactly the opposite. They also mention the MONEY angle FFS both in terms of government spending but also expected ROI in terms of future careers !!!
On the other hand, not a word has been written on the points I brought up in my previous comment (checks and balances, inherent difficulty of the domain, requirements that have nothing to do with training).