Hacker News Reader

Good point.

Remember, one of the key aspects of OO is hiding implementation details because they shouldn't matter. This fascination with exposing them and forcing them on end users is absurd.

We have to accept that some tasks and jobs are not for everyone and that's okay. That could be due to aptitude, skill gaps, education gaps, interest, or dozens of other things, some due to education system, some due to abilities of the individual.. and that's still okay.

The problem with computers (abstracting from accidental complexity) is, that they do what you tell them to do, not what you think you told them to do. You cannot somehow make an agreement or solve it, how it is solved with humans - by communicating. You must formulate your thought exactly.

And that's what most people have a problem with - except for some hard sciences, they never needed to formulate their thought that way.

> Literacy isn't about forcing people to learn things, it's about ensuring that everyone has the baseline exposure to help them discover if they have an interest in a topic, and then the resources to explore that topic if they choose.

That sounds hilariously naive. If we'd let people decide themselves what they want to learn the majority would still be in the sandbox making castles and playing with toys all day.

That may be true for children, but surely adults who have obtained a basic level of education should be able to decide for themselves.

Of course the question this leads to is "what is thr basic level of understanding that people should have in any given topic"?

Its about exposure, not learning enough to be a professional.

For example, I learned some basic mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography, etc in school. Until I got to university, what I learned wasn't enough to make me a mathematician, physicist, chemist etc. It did give me a baseline on which I could build and it gave me exposure. This exposure was forced on me, but what I did with it (a computer science degree and a programming career), was something that was left up to me to choose later.

I see computers/software the same way. Its common enough in day to day lives now that I think a baseline of computer literacy and some basic exposure should be required and afterwards the students can choose if they wish to explore more or not.

The exposure doesn't necessarily have to prep them for real work (I'm pretty sure dissecting a frog isn't going to prepare me for veterinary work...), just give them a taste of how things work.

> When I drive my car, I just want to get from point A to point B while listening to a podcast. I don't care to know how they work.

Yet, you've spent months explicitly training for that task.

And that’s just learning how to use the car. We’re talking about building one.

I think the car analogy kind of falls apart at this point. Using a computer and writing programs for a computer are both interacting with software. Take spreadsheets, for example: is making a spreadsheet analogous to building a car or to driving one? What about drag-and-drop visual programming?

And people have spent years learning how to check facebook.

The problem with this pitch is that it doesn't understand the distinction.

By a lot of people's standards, I am a scientist (just not a domain scientist). I spend my life understanding how things work and figuring out ways to further our understanding of those. It is great. If you ask me about how a computer works, I can talk for hours. Physical phenomena? Minutes. Biology? I can make a crude joke

As for a car? I vaguely understand the principles of a combustion engine, but I couldn't for the life of me make one. My understanding is "You get gas into the engine. You light it with a spark plug. It bursts into flames which moves a piston which moves a crank which moves a bunch of gears and eventually moves wheels". I don't know anything beyond that

Hell, another good example is in the realm of video games. Kerbal Space Program is awesome and does a great job of making people remember why they learned physics. But engines are a black box for the vast majority of us and you genuinely don't need to understand how the fuel gets to the thruster or what happens. It is just a black box where fuel goes in one end and fire comes out the other, with fire generating delta V.

And same here. Most people don't need to know WHY an apple falls. They just have to know that stuff will fall. Whereas the physicists and funky table makers DO have to understand why the apple falls and how it can be stopped.

people don't spend more that a few minutes learning the interface of a car, everything else is learning how not to die or kill other people with it.

Maybe if you drive an automatic. It took me a long time to be comfortable enough with shifting gears, operating turn signals and what not to leave enough attention for the actual traffic around me.

True, I still can't do manual quite right and it certainly adds danger to my trips. But my point was that people put time into learning how to use their cars because they're killing machines, most computers aren't, but the ones that are usually require some sort of formal training and certification, just like cars.

In the (proximate) words of Alan Kay: "Giving people what they want is marketing, given them what they need is education." I'm more interested in the latter.

But I do very much agree that using a computer should not require any idea about how they function. But that's for using a computer like a tool. For me, computers are not mere tools but a medium. So what you wanna do is to express yourself with computers. And for that you need to know how to do it.