I think most comments here are missing Jeff's point, or maybe I interpreted it in a different way. Most skills are somehow useful in the real world: programming, plumbing, economics, chemistry, logic, critical thinking, philosophy etc. Most people don't have the time and/or the will to learn most/all of these things. I agree a basic understanding of these would help but you have to make a compromise, you can't learn everything. We think programming is really important because we are programmers but it's not more important than most other areas. You should spend your time learning things you like/find really usefull.
Please don't learn to code
121–130 of 273 posts
Re: Please don't learn to code
#122Personally, I feel that the more people who learn to code, the better position we as members of society are placed in. While I certainly have no need for my local member of parliament to play perl golf in his/her spare time - I certainly do have a need, or at the very least, a want; for them to have some form of understanding about softare development. Informed people make informed decisions, and a higher number of people who are informed in matters that relate to things like software patents, the easier it is to garner a sympathetic ear when we say "Look - this isn't right, they shouldn't be able to do that."
I recall reading an article about the term 'programmer' and how it should be avoided when applying for jobs, rather, something like 'problem fixer' (I don't recall the actual example given, sorry) should be used, due to the negative, hermetic/wizardly air that supposedly hangs around those who program. I'm not a programmer, so I can't say if it is objectively true; but if it is, it seems logical making coding a more common skill would certainly remove some of the supposed semantics.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#123Programmer 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…
My first job in this field, without exaggeration: Oh, you can perform skills 1-4, great, welcome to the team and since you're a junior we can give you 35K a year. Sweet. First task, you'll need to level-up to about 8-9 as we need you to architect a Linux application server with a user panel for: hardware monitoring, firewall, application mgmt, network mgmt, license mgmt, application code obfuscation, etc.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#124I 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…
I actually just had to do some basic plumbing, with duct tape :-). I'm sure glad I understand the basics of how water flows through a pipe.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#125Unlike most of the top comments, I actually agree with Atwood's conclusion, if not all of the arguments he uses to get there.
I don't particularly care about the accumulation of bad code. I don't particularly think that summer of code people are going to be accumulating all that much of it that will be shared.
And I do agree that learning to program is a totally worthwhile and mind-expanding skill. But I can say that about a lot of the skills I've picked up. From driving a tractor(1), to the little bit of plumbing I've learned; to playing an instrument; they all involve problem solving; they all make you a better thinker; they're all fabulous to learn in and of themselves.
If forced to choose one of these skills, I'd say programming is in fact the deepest. But they all have enough plenty of depth for someone who's only going to be exploring them casually. And I don't feel like the summer of code mentality is over-hyping programming so much as its undervaluing all those other worthwhile skills.
There's plenty of worthwhile stuff to learn in this world. It's okay if you want to learn a few of the other things instead.
(1)Yes, operating a tractor and making use of its attachments does involve a lot of problem solving. I drove one as part of a job for a year and a half, and the guy I worked under could do so much more with it than I could that I was in awe.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#126I 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 knowledge.
I think Jeff is underestimating how much time the average office worker would save simply by learning Excel Macros or some basic scripting. Learning to program is really damn valuable, especially in fields where most people don't know any programming.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
> current development tools somewhere a kin to Egyptian heiroglyphics. You can do the basic things like... Ah, no. Heiroglyphics is just somewhere between an alphabet and syllabary - there are 60 odd symbols and they match to sounds like 'a', 'ts', 'gh'. The stuff you see in museums is the 'posh' stuff for best, there is a quick writing version of it (also known as heiratic) where the full pictures were made more abs…
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 dominant languages of the time.
As we speak the Kiyuku Shakespeare is stealing words for his play.
> the nuance of the finer English texts could be adequately captured in Hieroglyphics
On a technical point you could copy Shakespeare into it now - it has (most) of the current English sounds and with a couple of conventions/accents you would be good to go. I wouldn't recommend switching writing systems anytime soon.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#128Almost all of these arguments can be applied to a large majority of our school curriculum. If you are arguing that people shouldn't learn to code for the sake of learning to code, you are correct. If, however, you don't actually think learning to code translates to solving problems, or has any real world benefit, you should also be insisting we remove all of Math from our school curriculum, because who uses anything…
[...] you should also be insisting we remove all of Math from our school curriculum, because who uses anything beyond basic algebra? Hell, who uses anything beyond basic arithmetic now that we have calculators that can do algebra and calculus for us? Mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, chemists, economists, statisticians, engineers, meteorologists, actuaries, biologists, accountants, etc.
I think all of the jobs that you have listed involve using computers to automate, manage and solve problems.
Except rather than how we wield writing algebra or English pros, with advanced skill giving us the ability to express elaborate and abstract concepts, most people are computer illiterate.
Their use of the computer is analogous to knowing nothing about algebra or English, and choosing predetermined sentences to write pros, or choosing predetermined equations to do algebra. If what you want to express isn't supported, or what you have available isn't what you want, you're screwed.
People should be able to accomplish what they want with a powerful language. English and Maths are both powerful languages that are tools for modelling life and facts, coding models process and automation. It's not essential in the same way growing up in the Amazon rain forest where maths and arithmetic beyond "one, two and many" isn't essential. It's undoubtedly desirable and beneficial, however.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#129That article is so full of strawmen, it's not even funny. The existence of individuals who wouldn't gain much from learning to code does not imply that no one will gain much from learning to code. I have a hunch that the vast majority of regular office workers has at least some portion of their work which can be trivially automated. Knowing how to code maybe allows these workers to go and code up a script - but even…
I read half the article and just had to come here to make the same comment as you. This whole "how would Michael Bloomberg learning to code help him do is job?" is a strawman of the most epic proportions. Of course if you are an executive with a limitless staff to fulfill every possible mundane detail that needs to be taken care of then coding is of no use for you. Hell, even if it is you have people to take care of…
The problem is that the amateur programmers are unlikely to be building doghouses. What is more likely is that you end up maintaining someone's Macro laden excel spreadsheet because it is now mission critical infrastructure.
What tends to work as a happy medium for me is that I implement a proper relational database on the backend but have it output spreadsheets which people can Macro till their hearts content on the understanding that the database is the definitive copy.
I also allow people to upload their spreadsheets back to the database where it will import only changes to certain fields and heavily sanitize everything.
It's difficult to think of a programming task that is equivalent to building a doghouse, perhaps building a personal website with PHP might fill this niche but there are still security aspects to consider.
Re: Please don't learn to code
#130I'm kind of the villain of this piece -- a relatively novice coder who expects to apply for programming-heavy jobs in the future. Here's why I think I'm not actually a villain: 1. I'm not under any illusions that people should pay me mega-bucks because I can program at all. I haven't hit my 10,000 hours yet; closer to 1000. You should hire me because I'm a mathematician who can program, not because I'm a hacker geniu…
I think you're much closer to a programmer than a layman that programs. The straw man about reducing the amount of bad code in the world is garbage. Just code. If you're getting a benefit from it - or hell, if you just enjoy it - do it. You have nothing to apologize for. The whole elitist concept of only sanctioned programmers coding is just arrogant. Even the best programmers wrote awful code before they were great.…
It's like trying to cut down on the amount of bad writing in the world. Sure, I guess aesthetically it'd be nice if I never had to look at any bad writing. But bad writing is part of the process of becoming a good writer, so there'd ultimately be less good writing out there.