Ted Nelson argues the importance of personal computing (1979) [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
At some point we just don't think people need help with paper based tasks, "look around you, it's how everything is done" yet here we are with the PC 40 years later. And people look around and think that there is no chance everyone could be a programmer "look around you, they're all consumers, they couldn't understand how to make the computer do what they like". In 40 years there's no doubt this viewpoint will be wrong, but the popular opinion on the matter can't see that future.
See Bret Victors history of computing. The biggest adversary we have to overcome towards progress is the mainstream experts of our own field.
We have apps which seem to be like starting from scratch every time, which can't have abilities known by all because they aren't prepackaged by the devs ahead of time. Every app reinvents a minimal subset of sorting and search. If you have a better idea or a different connection you want to make its just not possible in the app.
Stop pretending that debilitating users is actually good for them in the silly word games we play. Give users power.
“Science advances one funeral at a time.” - Max Planck (Apparently)
That we assume reading, numeracy and fine motor skills which until 5 centuries ago were the preserve of less than 1% of the population in the West are not part of formal education or training should tell you all you need to know about how much cultural knowledge we assume people need to have in their daily life to function at the level of a 10 year old.
That 4 years to learn to read is considered normal but reading a 100 page manual is considered unreasonable shows us how much popular culture is lagging behind our tools. Given how technocentric our culture is, this is a situation as ridiculous as Mongols complaining that they need to learn to ride horses.
There is no chance, even if by "everyone" you just meant "a majority". It's intellectually challenging, just for one.
Do you seriously expect 99% of the population to be able to understand something as simple as the demonstration of Euclid's theorem? And yet any programming is more complicated than that, and more analogous.
You're the one arguing on the basis of value. I don't. Let me just ask you this; do you think that being a good enough finance trader requires a high IQ? I'm pretty sure of it, and I'm also of the opinion that what they're applying their smarts to is a net negative for society as a whole.
Another question, have you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate?
That's not, unless you stretch the meaning of the word far into meaningless. But if you insist on doing so, then yes, most people should be able to "compose digital tools" for a small enough number of digital tools and a wide enough meaning of "compose." Although, on second thought, it appears so many people had issues with "programming a VCR" back in the day, and that wasn't anywhere close to my meaning of "programming."
So let me rephrase it, "there is no chance everyone or even majority could become a minimally proficient user of a minimally useful programming language for novel tasks beyond a sequential list of actions."
For those who don't know computers for cynics is his series about questioning the origins of the status quo and considering alternative futures with different foundations.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTI2Kz0V2OFlgbkROVmzk...
I've seen talks by him a few times and I think he is worth listening to. He has interesting ideas well worth understanding.
Knitting is the perfect analogy for describing how DNA works to your grandmother.
"Knit 1 purl 2 often enough and you end up with a sweater."
a thread from 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17376753
I'm a bit annoyed at Ted Nelson for not making that comparison.