Should everyone learn to code?
-
This touches on some points that were discussed a while back in The "Good news, everybody: we’re safe from Skynet!" Thread, mainly about whether or not programming is something everyone should do, and how accessible it needs to be, etc. - and I'll warn you now, this post (not the video) gets into genetics and how people's brains form and how everyone doesn't have the same brain. (That might be a controversial subject for some.)
Not Everyone Should Code – 08:47
— PolyMatterI pretty much agree with the video, but what are your thoughts? Are you part of the 'everyone should learn to code' camp?
In particular, I'm fine with making programming simpler and more accessible and teaching more people about it, that's great, but solving difficult problems is unrelated to that. It will always be an inherently challenging thing to do regardless of how simple or accessible you make it, and many people don't actually enjoy doing that when it comes down to it, especially if their brains aren't wired to think that way.
Teaching people how to write code is one thing, teaching people how to solve the problems that programmers have to solve on a daily basis is another thing entirely, and I find many "everyone should learn to code" camps/schools/etc to be incredibly misleading. Everyone should learn history, but not everyone should become historians. As much as I would enjoy the ability to talk to every random person about the problems I'm facing and ask if they have any ideas, I don't see that happening due to time constraints and differences in brain development. I'm sure the same could be said of every career.
Sure, everyone can learn with enough time and effort, but it will be far more challenging and time-consuming for some than for others, and what about all the other professions they might enjoy more or be better suited to? How many people will waste their time and money trying to become a programmer because society told them to, only to find out they are better at something else they enjoy more? And what if someone finds out they're really good at it, but they have to ignore the fact that they aren't actually enjoying it because everyone just sees how good they are and keeps encouraging them? This happens in many careers but I feel like the "everyone should learn to code" movement highlights it.
The way I see it, we can choose our path, but we can't choose how steep the inclines are, and different people will have different inclines on the same path. At least until people start editing their kids' genes to make all the roads flat... but that's for a different thread.
-
The first 7:40 of the video was on point, until it turned into an advertisement.
I'm of the camp that languages don't matter, and teaching problem solving is a more important and useful skill. If you can use a simple programming language to teach that to someone - great. But focusing on programming instead of problem solving is missing the forest for the trees.
-
@unperverted-vixen said in Should everyone learn to code?:
The first 7:40 of the video was on point, until it turned into an advertisement.
I'm of the camp that languages don't matter, and teaching problem solving is a more important and useful skill. If you can use a simple programming language to teach that to someone - great. But focusing on programming instead of problem solving is missing the forest for the trees.
The problem with teaching problem solving is that it's often quite domain dependent. It also needs a lot of knowledge about the problem area. So you can't teach it in a vacuum. We're finding that more and more with basic math and reading--you can teach "comprehension strategies" until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't help as much as teaching phonics and teaching lots of facts.
You can't reason from a void. Coding in a void won't help either. These "everybody should code" fads are the same thing as "everyone should own a house". And we saw how well that worked.
-
@benjamin-hall said in Should everyone learn to code?:
These "everybody should code" fads are the same thing as "everyone should own a house". And we saw how well that worked.
I ended up making out with a decent financial advantage? I'm okay with that. ;)
-
@benjamin-hall said in Should everyone learn to code?:
These "everybody should code" fads are the same thing as
"everyone should play the clarinet"
"everyone should own a car manufacturer"
"everyone should eat spaghetti every third tuesday"
-
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Teaching people how to write code is one thing
I don't mind people learning a bit of basic scripting, particularly to the point where they get the idea that the computer can do what they tell it to do, rather than just being this mysterious device that inflicts things on them at random, but that's a very different objective to making everyone into programmers. For example, teach them Python but not how to make classes or libraries. (That's a good idea anyway; Python only starts to look really ugly once you start writing classes.) I think a scripting language — or other language with a REPL — is best for beginners; the immediacy of having the computer do what you want right away is far better than screwing around with compiling. (If someone wants to go further, that's cool; the good part is that it's by their choice, not as part of any mandatory curriculum.)
I'm also of the opinion that almost all scientists and engineers should take it upon themselves to be better programmers than that; they don't need to be nearly as good at it as software engineers do, but they should know much more about what are good practices (e.g., basic version control) and almost all of science and engineering ends up with lots of computer use now. Even areas like field botany need quite a bit of computing now when analysing the data collected (and mobile devices are just so useful in many ways for people out of the office). However scientists and engineers also need to have the “problem solving attitude” that's been mentioned above, so it's not a huge ask.
-
@benjamin-hall I have little teaching experience (aside from some 101 tutoring and helping friends with their math exams, but me being bad at teaching is the price they had to pay for passing their exams), but I also think we should teach applying logical thinking and problem solving, to some degree. We teach stuff like algebra and calculus, but everything related to computers seems to be a magic black box to people. I'm thinking of the old Babbage quote of
On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
A lot of times people know how (or think they know) how to do something intuitively, but if you ask them to break down the process into a series of simple steps than can be precisely described (instead of "step 1: solve the problem"), they don't know what to do.
On the other hand, teaching everyone how to code would be stupid, IMO.
-
@benjamin-hall said in Should everyone learn to code?:
These "everybody should code" fads are the same thing as "everyone should own a house". And we saw how well that worked.
It worked for most of human history
-
@dkf said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I don't mind people learning a bit of basic scripting, particularly to the point where they get the idea that the computer can do what they tell it to do, rather than just being this mysterious device that inflicts things on them at random, but that's a very different objective to making everyone into programmers.
I don't know what scripting languages you use, but ones I use are more mysterious and random than anything else running on my computer, unknown malware included.
-
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@benjamin-hall I have little teaching experience (aside from some 101 tutoring and helping friends with their math exams, but me being bad at teaching is the price they had to pay for passing their exams), but I also think we should teach applying logical thinking and problem solving, to some degree. We teach stuff like algebra and calculus, but everything related to computers seems to be a magic black box to people. I'm thinking of the old Babbage quote of
On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
My whole point was that you can't just teach "applying logical thinking and problem solving" as some generic thing. You can teach algorithms for specific problems and meta-algorithms for slightly more generic problems, but the steps to breaking down the problems are incredibly fact specific. The hands-down best thing we can teach is to love to read. And to be good at reading. That requires a large fact base and non-retarded teaching methods. Basic math facts (to provide number sense) are also critical--I see kids pulling out calculators to divide 64 by 2. Or divide 10000 by 10.
Basically, I see the important things (by rough age level) as:
Early--read to them lots. Lots of words. Talk to them in adult words.
Elementary: Facts. Lots and lots and lots of facts. They're optimized for learning these at this point. So stuff them full in ways that interest them. Basic arithmetic should be hammered here, along with a wide variety of reading.
Middle: Keep them from killing each other. Start algorithms. Basic algebra starts here. Introducing code here can work well--I have colleagues who do just that. It's robot-focused--make it move, make it turn, etc.
High school: Meta-algorithms. Algebra & Stats, Calculus for those who plan to go on to science fields. Code here can happen well. I've had students blow past me in record time--one who makes VR programs, one who I taught Python to who later was doing all sorts of machine learning and other fancy stuff.
-
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
A lot of times people know how (or think they know) how to do something intuitively, but if you ask them to break down the process into a series of simple steps than can be precisely described (instead of "step 1: solve the problem"), they don't know what to do.
It's known as the illusion of explanatory depth. Something feels familiar so it seems like you can explain it In detail, until you actually start trying to explain, when you quickly realise how little you understand
-
@dkf said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I don't mind people learning a bit of basic scripting, particularly to the point where they get the idea that the computer can do what they tell it to do, rather than just being this mysterious device that inflicts things on them at random
I think this is a good point. Children are now being brought up having only used youtube etc on their tablets. We'll see how things pan out, but I think we should design our software to facilitate collaboration and creation instead of only consumption
-
@bb36e said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I think this is a good point. Children are now being brought up having only
used youtube etclistened to mindless drivel on theirtabletshome radio-system. We'll see how things pan out, but I think we should design oursoftwaretele-technologies to facilitate collaboration and creation instead of only consumption
-
Writing code is not an end, it's a means.
Developer tools should be easy enough that anybody with domain knowledge should be able to automate some or all of their daily tasks using a computer. There was a time in the distant past when makers of software development tools recognized that.
Unfortunately, the software industry is full of people who mistakenly believe coding is an end and not a means, and also think they can become domain experts in no time at all.
Of course posting this here is useless because this forum is full of "high priesthood" types who think only the super smart super smarts can code and they should be revered and worshipped by everybody else etc.
-
@bb36e said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@dkf said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I don't mind people learning a bit of basic scripting, particularly to the point where they get the idea that the computer can do what they tell it to do, rather than just being this mysterious device that inflicts things on them at random
I think this is a good point. Children are now being brought up having only used youtube etc on their tablets. We'll see how things pan out, but I think we should design our software to facilitate collaboration and creation instead of only consumption
That, or you're asked this question by asshole professor at college who cuts your mark in half because you said relationship's arity is number of entities in it. You can know the solution in every detail at every level, and still be unable to explain it. I've had just this problem in high school where I would blaze through all equations faster than anyone else in class because I did many more intermediate transformations that were seemingly pointless but significantly simplified things. Whenever the teacher took me to the blackboard to show and explain my work to class, no one could understand what I'm doing or why I'm doing it. Eventually she stopped picking me.
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Writing code is not an end, it's a means.
So is maths, chemistry, physics, foreign languages, and every other school subject which has any practical application.
-
@jaloopa said in Should everyone learn to code?:
It's known as the illusion of explanatory depth. Something feels familiar so it seems like you can explain it In detail, until you actually start trying to explain
This is frequently my main problem with trying to program a computer. You look at something with a human brain and immediately see how it works, but now try getting that across to that stupid machine.
-
@benjamin-hall said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@benjamin-hall I have little teaching experience (aside from some 101 tutoring and helping friends with their math exams, but me being bad at teaching is the price they had to pay for passing their exams), but I also think we should teach applying logical thinking and problem solving, to some degree. We teach stuff like algebra and calculus, but everything related to computers seems to be a magic black box to people. I'm thinking of the old Babbage quote of
On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
My whole point was that you can't just teach "applying logical thinking and problem solving" as some generic thing. You can teach algorithms for specific problems and meta-algorithms for slightly more generic problems, but the steps to breaking down the problems are incredibly fact specific. The hands-down best thing we can teach is to love to read. And to be good at reading. That requires a large fact base and non-retarded teaching methods. Basic math facts (to provide number sense) are also critical--I see kids pulling out calculators to divide 64 by 2. Or divide 10000 by 10.
Basically, I see the important things (by rough age level) as:
Early--read to them lots. Lots of words. Talk to them in adult words.
Elementary: Facts. Lots and lots and lots of facts. They're optimized for learning these at this point. So stuff them full in ways that interest them. Basic arithmetic should be hammered here, along with a wide variety of reading.
Middle: Keep them from killing each other. Start algorithms. Basic algebra starts here. Introducing code here can work well--I have colleagues who do just that. It's robot-focused--make it move, make it turn, etc.
High school: Meta-algorithms. Algebra & Stats, Calculus for those who plan to go on to science fields. Code here can happen well. I've had students blow past me in record time--one who makes VR programs, one who I taught Python to who later was doing all sorts of machine learning and other fancy stuff.Honestly though, the basic steps of problem solving are
- Figure out what the fuck the problem is
- Figure out how the fuck to solve the problem
- Do stuff
- Verify that it actually solved the problem
This is recursive. If you cannot figure out what the problem is, your problem at hand is that you do not have enough knowledge of the area in which the problem occurred. The solution to that problem is to either get the knowledge yourself or hire someone with the knowledge.
I've come across a scary amount of people that fail in the first step, so it may well be taught. Especially the recursive manner of problem solving.
-
The value in teaching coding en masse isn't that they could all become programmers, although it might show some people who wouldn't have considered it that they do have an aptitude. The main benefit would be to demystify computers and let people realise that they can do more than browsing the web and using Office. If you realise that computers simply do exactly what they're told to, lots of other things can follow
-
@jaloopa it doesn't work out like that in practice. Either you go low-level enough to turn away most students (assembly or lower), or they will memorize exact commands needed for each task. Computers are simply too complicated to truly understand them without dedicating a fair chunk of your life to it.
-
I do a fair amount of work with kids and technology. One of my favorite international organizations is Code Dojo. We often start with "An Hours of Code" (kids as young as 5-6) and then move to Scratch.
Kids really enjoy puzzling out the solution and then seeing tangible results [both of correct and incorrect approaches].
Neglecting some potential special cases, I fail to see how this could be a "bad thing" for any of them.
-
@thecpuwizard all learning is net positive in isolation. The problem is figuring out which set of things to learn is most beneficial (whatever it means) given the time constraints in form of length of day, length of workweek and length of childhood.
-
@gąska said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@thecpuwizard all learning is net positive in isolation. The problem is figuring out which set of things to learn is most beneficial (whatever it means) given the time constraints in form of length of day, length of workweek and length of childhood.
Complete agreement. One consideration is how interested the child is in the activity that drives the learning. Often (based on my experiences) this is possibly the most important of all. The "drop out rate" for kids involved in the programs I am part of is virtually zero, and a good percentage stay in touch [via the parent] to both show off what they have done, and to ask questions.
-
@thecpuwizard said in Should everyone learn to code?:
The "drop out rate" for kids involved in the programs I am part of is virtually zero
Sounds like sampling bias. How many kids with typical dropout-like attitude are in your group? Is it voluntary or a required part of school curriculum?
-
@unperverted-vixen said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I ended up making out with a decent financial advantage? I'm okay with that. ;)
"A decent financial advantage"? Is that what you call your girlfriend? :P
-
@carnage said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Honestly though, the basic steps of problem solving are
- Figure out what the fuck the problem is
- Figure out how the fuck to solve the problem
- Do stuff
- Verify that it actually solved the problem
This is recursive. If you cannot figure out what the problem is, your problem at hand is that you do not have enough knowledge of the area in which the problem occurred. The solution to that problem is to either get the knowledge yourself or hire someone with the knowledge.
It happens pretty often at work that I'll come across a problem and have to say to a more experienced coworker, "I know this is wrong, and I found what's causing the problem, but I don't know what the right way to fix it is in the specific context of our system."
-
@masonwheeler said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@unperverted-vixen said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I ended up making out with a decent financial advantage? I'm okay with that. ;)
"A decent financial advantage"? Is that what you call your girlfriend? :P
Nah, she's a financial disadvantage
-
@gąska said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@thecpuwizard said in Should everyone learn to code?:
The "drop out rate" for kids involved in the programs I am part of is virtually zero
Sounds like sampling bias. How many kids with typical dropout-like attitude are in your group? Is it voluntary or a required part of school curriculum?
With out a doubt there is some level of bias, I believe it to be moderate to low. CoderDojo is "voluntary", but there are a fair number of kids who initially are there because their parents "made them" (not not voluntary from their point of view). Other activities involve me going into schools themselves.
So, what I tend to do is watch for changes in level of interest/involvement [not talking just about tech, but with kids in general].
-
@thecpuwizard said in Should everyone learn to code?:
there are a fair number of kids who initially are there because their parents "made them"
And that's huge selection bias if you're measuring dropout rate. Most dropouts have parents who don't care.
-
@gąska said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Computers are simply too complicated to truly understand them without dedicating a fair chunk of your life to it.
Let's assume for a second that that's true. (Even though it's not-- yet.)
That's true only because the makers of software development tools have made it true. Because they've put zero, or even less than zero, effort into usability, discoverability, UX, etc. Developers who fucking hate users are dominating the industry.
It's also far more true now than it was in, say, 1997. When you could solve problems with easy-to-use environments like Filemaker, Microsoft Access, HyperCard, AppleScript, Visual Basic 5+, etc. Those that still exist have been completely neutered, and using them will have the "real" software developers laughing and jeering at you saying "wow you did that so wrong and stupid and now I have to rewrite all of it, thanks moron". Such encouragement to the guy who just wanted to use a tool to make his life easier.
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Because they've put zero, or even less than zero, effort into usability, discoverability, UX, etc.
That is a problem, but it's not the problem you replied to. You can simplify all that stuff and computers would still be inherently complex. Most professions deal with this fundamental property: physics, sociology, math, etc. - it's all inherently complex no matter how much you try to simplify it. In recent decades we've seen science be made more accessible and there have been many efforts to explain it in simple ways (see all the physics and science related channels on YouTube). But that hasn't reduced the complexity at all, and many people will still be unable to deal with that complexity.
We designed computers ourselves, but we also designed roads and cities, and reducing traffic is not a trivial problem. Some systems are just inherently complex. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to reduce complexity, I'm just saying there are better ways to go about the problem than to fight fundamental properties of nature.
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Let's assume for a second that that's true. (Even though it's not-- yet.)
So you're saying that it's possible to completely understand everything including:
- the userspace applications that you use
- your OS kernel
- the firmware that the OS talks to
- your CPU, including all the coprocessors and god knows what else Intel/ARM have been up to
?
computers are fucking complicated, and there's no escaping the fact that when you have a system with a million moving parts it's going to break bad in a million different, complex ways. and before you reply with 'typical high priesthood' bullshit, have you thought that maybe, some things are just hopeless/impossible? maybe we don't have to use computers for everything.
-
@bb36e - Understand this, and you understand it all (though comprehending it all at one time is a different matter ;) )
-
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
That is a problem, but it's not the problem you replied to.
It's both.
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
You can simplify all that stuff and computers would still be inherently complex.
Of course. Just like cars are inherently complex, and yet we all agree as a society that anybody (barring severe sight or reaction time impairment) can learn to drive.
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
But that hasn't reduced the complexity at all, and many people will still be unable to deal with that complexity.
They don't have to be able to deal with that complexity for programming or scripting to be accessible to them.
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Some systems are just inherently complex.
The thing is: you might be right. But we're, as a profession/society, making absolutely zero effort to make it less complex. So again: is this a thing that is? Or is this a thing that is only because nobody's bothering to even attempt to try and fix it? My assertion is that it's the latter.
Oh and I suppose it's all just coincidence that most all the established programmers go around saying how hard and complex it is and nobody should learn it unless they're super mega smarty-smarts and can learn a CLI in 37 nanoseconds-- it's just a coincidence that the people saying this can earn more salary if there are fewer programmers, huh?
Just like you get all those oh-so-honest discussions in programming communities about eliminating H1B visas. Which are all so caring and concerned for the immigrants in question and somehow nobody ever mentions that without H1B visas, they'd likely make more money.
Which I'm not saying this to change your mind, if you believe it honestly, fair enough. But you should at least acknowledge if you financially benefit from convincing people that programming is "too hard for most people to do", if only so you're not deluding yourself while you think through this issue.
-
@bb36e said in Should everyone learn to code?:
So you're saying that it's possible to completely understand everything including:
the userspace applications that you use
your OS kernel
the firmware that the OS talks to
your CPU, including all the coprocessors and god knows what else Intel/ARM have been up to?
How is this even remotely relevant to the discussion? You guys are way out in left field just trying to score debate points against me, sheesh.
We're talking about programming. The non-programmers who made The Manhole in HyperCard, and sold about a million copies of it, I can guarantee you they didn't spent 1 microsecond thinking about the computer's firmware or OS kernel. Why would they have? It's utterly irrelevant to what they were doing with the computer.
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
How is this even remotely relevant to the discussion?
Computers are simply too complicated to truly understand them without dedicating a fair chunk of your life to it.
I don't think it's possible to completely abstract away a computer from programming. it's just too complicated for people to come up with a good solution.
-
@bb36e said in Should everyone learn to code?:
I don't think it's possible to completely abstract away a computer from programming.
Ok; so it's impossible. Just like it's impossible to completely abstract away a car's transmission from the person driving. (Although you can get really, really, really damn close with an electric car, but that aside.)
Why should that prevent people from learning how to program a computer?
It's not an argument. It's like me saying, "hey Bob should be able to do a mail merge with a script so his legal clients get a different letterhead than his accounting clients" and you going "BOB CAN NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE HE WILL NEVER BE CAPABLE OF WRITING A OS KERNEL!" It's a gibberish argument, from my perspective.
-
@blakeyrat You seem to be confusing two different things here.
Yes, having some kind of visual programming language where you just connect puzzle pieces together (or whatever metaphor they use) can be nice for learning. You've still got things like that. I've heard Lego mind storms is pretty cool for exploring such things, for example, although I don't know any details.
Nobody is saying such learning/teaching tools shouldn't be made. But that's not the same as wanting to use that professionally. I can drive a car, but you wouldn't ask me to fix yours. Similarly, I don't want to use software cobbled together by someone who has little to no idea what he's doing. In fact, you'd be the first to complain if you have to use someone's shitty Flash or whatever app.
-
@blakeyrat the thread of discussion was that it is not reasonable to expect to be able to teach children how to program in a way that doesn't end with the children simply memorizing what they're told because these abstractions tend to bubble up.
-
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
You seem to be confusing two different things here.
Actually I think everybody else is. Apparently the word "programming" only applies if you're writing computer firmware?
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Yes, having some kind of visual programming language where you just connect puzzle pieces together (or whatever metaphor they use) can be nice for learning.
I never mentioned anything about visual programming languages or "connecting puzzle pieces together"(?). Just to be clear: that's all in topspin's brain, not anything I've typed.
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
But that's not the same as wanting to use that professionally.
The lawyer doing the mail merge for his clients isn't using it professionally? Seriously?
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Similarly, I don't want to use software cobbled together by someone who has little to no idea what he's doing.
So nobody should be allowed to solve their own problems in their own way because:
- They'd do it in a way you don't like, and
- Ew! I might have to touch it! And it's all gross! It has Microsoft Access all over it! Eww!
Am I understanding your argument correctly?
@topspin said in Should everyone learn to code?:
In fact, you'd be the first to complain if you have to use someone's shitty Flash or whatever app.
Depends on how good the app was, doesn't it?
The vast vast vast majority of the unusable shit with garbage UX comes from professional developers. So I'm not sure why you assert the general public would do worse.
In fact, I wager any random person pulled off the street could have designed a better UI for Git than Linus Torvalds did.
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
You can simplify all that stuff and computers would still be inherently complex.
Of course. Just like cars are inherently complex, and yet we all agree as a society that anybody (barring severe sight or reaction time impairment) can learn to drive.
Yes, and the children watch YouTube on their iPads. Teaching everyone to code would be more along the lines of teaching everyone to repair their own car.
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Some systems are just inherently complex.
The thing is: you might be right. But we're, as a profession/society, making absolutely zero effort to make it less complex. So again: is this a thing that is? Or is this a thing that is only because nobody's bothering to even attempt to try and fix it? My assertion is that it's the latter.
Your assertion, as usual, is wrong. There are a great many ways of programming that are not complex at all. Not coincidentally, they are also so underpowered it is impossible to do anything with them.
Oh and I suppose it's all just coincidence that most all the established programmers go around saying how hard and complex it is and nobody should learn it unless they're super mega smarty-smarts and can learn a CLI in 37 nanoseconds-- it's just a coincidence that the people saying this can earn more salary if there are fewer programmers, huh?
Just like you get all those oh-so-honest discussions in programming communities about eliminating H1B visas. Which are all so caring and concerned for the immigrants in question and somehow nobody ever mentions that without H1B visas, they'd likely make more money.
Which I'm not saying this to change your mind, if you believe it honestly, fair enough. But you should at least acknowledge if you financially benefit from convincing people that programming is "too hard for most people to do", if only so you're not deluding yourself while you think through this issue.
Nobody is under the impression that they wouldn't be benefiting, and I don't know why you don't think that is the case. But that is simply why we are paying attention to this issue; it doesn't invalidate the arguments themselves.
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
The lawyer doing the mail merge for his clients isn't using it professionally? Seriously?
You think that's what was meant? Seriously?
-
@pie_flavor said in Should everyone learn to code?:
You think that's what was meant? Seriously?
I know what it meant; that someone in this thread was treating programming as an "end" and not as a "means". Which is wrong-think that I'm going to point out whenever it comes up.
-
@thecpuwizard said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Kids really enjoy puzzling out the solution and then seeing tangible results
That’s the main reason why things like Lego Mindstorms exist, if you ask me: because if you program it, you get to see a real, physical object do the things you programmed. You and
meI (or possibly justmeI) get a feeling of satisfaction when a piece of code produces the expected numbers or letters on a computer screen, but for most people that’ll probably not be quite as exciting as seeing that robot walk the course you told it to.Hmm … maybe the trick is to get more kids to play this:
/pic1000553.jpg)
-
@gurth Or this:
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Yes, having some kind of visual programming language where you just connect puzzle pieces together (or whatever metaphor they use) can be nice for learning.
I never mentioned anything about visual programming languages or "connecting puzzle pieces together"(?). Just to be clear: that's all in topspin's brain, not anything I've typed.
It was an example and since I've not even said it's bad, what's your problem?
So nobody should be allowed to solve their own problems in their own way because:
- They'd do it in a way you don't like, and
- Ew! I might have to touch it! And it's all gross! It has Microsoft Access all over it! Eww!
Just to be clear: that's not anything I've typed.
Wow, talking to you is beyond exhausting.
-
-
@blakeyrat said in Should everyone learn to code?:
@pie_flavor said in Should everyone learn to code?:
You think that's what was meant? Seriously?
I know what it meant; that someone in this thread was treating programming as an "end" and not as a "means". Which is wrong-think that I'm going to point out whenever it comes up.
Which was irrelevant to what I was saying. Programming professionally is selling your software to other people. Whether or not you use a program you wrote yourself to assist in your work does not factor into the definition of programming professionally. Words have meanings, yes?
-
@lb_ said in Should everyone learn to code?:
how everyone doesn't have the same brain. (That might be a controversial subject for some.)
Funny how no one's concerned that not everyone can play football...
Why should the brain be any different from your physical build.
Somewhere along the line we deleted the word no, and it's destroyed our ability to rationalize credibly.
-
@xaade said in Should everyone learn to code?:
Funny how no one's concerned that not everyone can play football...
Maybe in your country. Over here, playing football is one of the first skills every boy learns, just after they learn to tie shoes. Sometimes earlier. If I had 6 years old son who can't play football, I'd be VERY concerned.
