Please don't learn to code

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 is where the mayor of NYC ends up.

There was once a time when books were only read and written by an elite group. Now everyone can read - and everyone can write. There are still the elite authors that write better than the rest of us. Just because everyone can write, doesn't mean everyone is trying to be a professional author.

Computers are a part of society. To function well in society, it's beneficial to understand a little about how they work, and how to make them do things. The essence of programming is making a computer do something more efficiently than you can.

Programming isn't just the advanced stuff - recursion, pointers, functional programming, or whatever. Maybe Jeff is too far down the rabbit hole to realise this, but most people don't know what programming even looks like. They don't know how we tell computers to do the things they do. Recently I was with a customer, making notes about changes I needed to make to their application. They asked me "Is that how you make it do that?". No - that was my TODO file. And these are people that work on computers all day, every day.

It's beneficial if marketing folk understand the basics of programming when they're doing web ads. It's useful that CAD engineers know the basics so they can automate AutoCAD. Its useful that financial accountants know basic programming so they can become more efficient with analysing data.

If the mayor of NYC wants to learn to program in his spare time, why the hell not? I bet there wouldn't be the same complaints if he wanted to learn how to surf.

edit: grammar

If tomorrow you want to learn to cook, how would you feel if a master chef told you "No, don't. You'll never be as good as me. If you're hungry, come to my restaurant instead".

I think there's nothing wrong with learning a new skill, whoever you are, whatever you do.

Learning new skills is what makes us human.

2. Atwood says:

"at least high school level math are fundamental to performing the job of a politician. Or at any job"

Do you know what is high school level math? It is a seemingly randomly selected subset of mathematics in fact based on mostly the scientific and engineering needs of the 19th century. What is included in 'highschool-level math' should be evolving. For example basic programming knowledge is more fundamental in today's society than trigonometric equations, coordinate geometry, logarithmic equations, etc... (all of which is high-school math).

Very basic programming could (and should) be part of basic math education.

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 if they can't, it might allow them to identify this and state their work in terms of programming, thus vastly lowering the barrier to getting someone else to do the actual programming.

A workforce that can accurately say "this is a computers work" opens floodgates of productivity increases.

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.

  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

If you're going to get to Level 6, I'd prefer you just stop at Level 5.

If you get to Levels 7,8, or 9, thank you.

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 genius. Often, being an "X who can program" is much more valuable than just an X. It means you can execute your ideas yourself; and it means you have a clear concept of which ideas can be executed computationally and which cannot.

2. I couldn't just "quit programming" any more than I could quit writing or quit reading. I could resolve to, but I wouldn't last long. I've found that when something makes my brain happy, but isn't technically "my job," I'm much better off following instinct and doing it anyway, rather than forcing myself never to have any side projects.

3. You're worried I'll contribute to the volume of bad code in the world? Well, just because there are more experienced programmers than me doesn't mean I'm dishonest or stupid. I make a point to be very frank about what I can and can't do at the moment. I've found that the stuff I can do is quite valuable to people. I don't try to bluff my way into projects I'm obviously not qualified to contribute to.

Get out of your comfort zone, live for a minute in someone else's shoes and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn to respect the work that other people do and be willing to pay them for it - they deserve to be paid for their Work. Yes, sitting behind a desk all day bringing brainpower to bear on saving the company money is Work. Driving 11 hours a day is Work. Grilling that steak and walking it to your table is Work. It's all Work because it takes us away from our families, because it's so well regulated that it adds stress, because we'd rather be doing other things but the bills have to be paid (i.e. we have to pay other people for the Work they do keeping our lights on, our Internet connected and our water reasonably clean.)

So, please, learn to program. Then, when you need software built, you'll know why you hired me for "so much" and how much trouble I'm saving you.

I personally think that one day it will be impossible to function in society without the ability to manipulate and query data. To use Jeff's example, as Mayor of a large city there must be mountains of data that might be relevant to every single decision that is made, and the mayors who can query and gain insight into that data quickly (without having to write a spec and get someone else to do it for them) will eventually be more successful, to the point where all mayors will be expected to be able to manipulate data.

There are a number of things that need to happen before that though:

Firstly, the tools need to get a LOT better. I put our current development tools somewhere a kin to Egyptian hieroglyphics. You can do basic things like record the births and deaths of kings, but could Shakespeare have written what he did in hieroglyphics? I'm guessing not. (Although I bet someone somewhere has done a translation!)

Next, this vision of the future is based on the amount of data in the world getting a LOT bigger. To the point where intuition or past experience simply can't compete with the people who are mining the data.

Politics will probably be one of the last professions to convert, the cultural change will take a while to work though. The first professions will be the kind of things where Excel is used heavily at the moment (you could argue that Excel is a programming environment). Professions like Marketing, Manufacturing (which will become predominately robot driven at some point) and Medicine (which will become heavily influenced by generic programming) will probably be early adopters. But one day, I think "programming" in the sense of giving a "machine" a series of logical instructions to follow, will be universal and it will simply be impossible to live a normal life without that skill.

EDIT: Fixed ironic typo ;)

I should also point out that, the more politicians know how to code, the less politicians treat computers as black boxes that "the nerds" need to perform magic with. It won't go away, certainly, but its a step in the right direction.

> But understanding variables and functions, pointers and recursion? I can't see it.

Hey, I'd argue that understanding exactly those things are what should be included in "everyone should learn to code". All of those are difficult mental constructs important for understanding how our complex world works. Let's look at it case-by-case:

variables - this is basic; the idea to take something (a concept) in your hand and manipulate it by a symbolic name. This is, in some way, taught in high-school math, but somehow many people don't seem to grasp the idea behind the concept of a variable.

functions - ability to take a set of instruction and name it. Possibly have it parametrized. That's simple. But naming several sets of concepts, and then using them to build another layer of concepts, which is then used to build another layer of concepts... I'd call this an essencial problem-solving skill.

pointers - concept of indirection; for people not accustomed to it, it's easy to get lost in different levels of indirection when discussing things (like, a difference between 'belief' and 'belief in belief', or P, proof of P, proof that P is provable, etc.)

recursion - because not everything circular is invalid; sometimes things defined in the terms of themselves are the simplest way to go.

To all of this I'd also add one more, IMO essencial, thing - understanding of feedback loops. It could cut out a lot of discussions about whether X causes Y, or Y causes X. Surprise surprise, it might be a feedback loop, in which X and Y are interlocked, and are both to blame.

Bottomline, programming teaches us a lot of important skills and mental constructs useful for problem-solving and understanding how the world works. And those skills are hard to get elsewhere.

A silly example from high-school biology: what is genetic code if not opcodes for protein assembly machinery? DNA "data" is code that programs machines building proteins. Easy to understand and remember if you know even a little bit about how 'automation'/'computing' is done.

http://reviewsindepth.com/2011/04/why-everyone-should-learn-...

I don't think Jeff's piece undermines any of the reasons I put forward there.

Going through his points one by one.

It's easy to agree that you should ideally write no code - but of course the ideal assumes that all the provided interfaces in the world provide you with everything you desire, need. The point is that the world is such that most of the time this is not the case.

It does not assume that coding is the goal. It assumes that there are always various goals that have not been met by existing interfaces or infrastructure. (i.e. that the ideal in the first point can never be achieved in reality)

It doesn't necessarily put the method before the problem. It's just assuming that the many of the problems faced by a majority of people (or everyone) in western society can be solved with code.

His next point speak to professionalism in coding. In large software projects - you absolutely need professionalism. But many problems people face don't require large software projects to solve. I give an example in the linked piece above of a problem I solved with code that certainly didn't need a large software project.

His final point - it does not imply this thin membrane between professionalism and being an amateur coder. In fact - I advocate the complete opposite, yet still think everyone should code. I'm not sure why he thinks it does imply this - so its hard to argue against him here. To me it's prima facie not the case.

-Robert Heinlein

As much as I believe (and I do) in the importance of technical and mathematical literacy, it's no more important than the perspective that can be gained from, say, learning to knit or beatbox. There are very few skills that don't teach some sort of methodical problem solving, the rest is just domain.

We all benefit when we learn a little bit about another profession, whether it is painting or plumbing, bricklaying or baking. In that context demystifying coding for the average person isn't a bad goal. Just to clue people in that tough solutions they have might be easily solved is a good thing. Getting people to wrap their heads around logical thinking is definitely a good thing.

I think the comparison with plumbing is apt, but not in the way he intends. Let's say I turn on my tap and no water comes out, now I know nothing about plumbing but at least I know that the water comes to the tap through pipes so perhaps one is blocked or leaking?

By the same token if my car engine won't start then I can hazard a guess that it's perhaps a failure in the ignition system or the starter motor. I can also reason that the engine works by combustion of fuel, so it is logical that if the fuel tank is empty I won't get very far.

Contrast this with computers, the average person has literally no conceptual model whatsoever of what is going on beyond the fact that they require electrical power.

Of course people learn the buzzwords from the media to make it sort of sound like they know what they are talking about. I remember years ago people bragging about their "64 bit" console despite not having the slightest clue about what a bit was or why it should matter.

This makes it easier for people to buy media scare stories about "hackers" etc as well as not really understanding what it means to protect themselves online (beyond installing some AV software and praying).

It might also make life a little easier for people who are not technical to specify software requirements. For example many times I've been given a spec like "if X happens then do Y", of course X is never one thing, it is a combination of a large number of sub conditions that are dependent on various external variables etc.

When you try and get somebody to explain in detail all of these subconditions to you so that you can make the software correct people will often take you for being overly pedantic because they understand intuitively what they mean by X and can't quite get the fact that the computer doesn't.

As for Bloomberg at this phase in his life picking up coding, probably not. On the other hand, he made his fortune in part via hardware and software, so I doubt he's completely clueless about it even now.

I'm perhaps in a unique position to comment, having recently taught my girlfriend to program. So I can talk about how that played out.

My girlfriend understands menus, she knows about links, she can install software, she can use word, she can type away like no other, and even fix some problems. If you watched her using a computer it'd seem like she had a pretty good affinity with this black box.

However, I don't think most programmers realize what a holistic approach the average person (even a relatively tech savvy one) takes to computers. They only understand them at the highest level. They develop fetishes and incantations to fix things. When something goes wrong my girlfriend will turn the computer on an off. She'll turn the router on and off. Etc. Or just click "ok" until it stops complaining. It often fixes the problem, but it's just something she's learned to do with little understanding. She goes to the store and can pick out a decent phone or laptop, but only because she's developed an intuitive semi-understanding of the lingo. This one has more gigs, that's better...etc.

The computer will do things they don't understand, except some vague notion that the computer is "dumb".

I asked her one time how a computer works because I was legitimately curious how people without any instruction in comp sci etc visualize it. She had absolutely no idea of even the most fundamental workings of a computer except that it had something vaguely to do with "ones and zeros".

I taught her binary. I taught her boolean logic. I showed her binary math. I gave a very basic example of how you can use circuits to do binary math. I made her sit at a desk and act as a processor. Then I explained the concept of bootstrapping.

Then I taught her a little bit of Python.

Enlightenment.

She understands garbage in - garbage out. She understands dependencies. She understands algorithmic complexity. She understands types and formatting...and much more. (at least generally, which is enough).

This mysterious box no longer seems capricious and opaque. She has a much better understanding of why her computer behaves the way it does and therefore feels more at ease. Sure she can't magically fix anything, but she's recognizing general patterns more and more.

She installed Ubuntu recently in fact, and has started writing Python scripts (and Bash!) to assist in assorted data processing tasks she used to do by hand. When my girlfriend needed to update batches of reports, she would up each one BY HAND and change them. Using a computer was frustrating and scary. Learning coding won't improve her life? Seriously?

Would it make him a better mayor? Not necessarily but it sure could help. I'm sure he uses a computer and I'm willing to bet the less time the mayor spends screwing around with a computer or waiting for tech support the better. Likewise, I'm sure he has all sorts of tedious tasks which don't warrant third party software but which could be tackled by a nice Perl script. That doesn't even take into account the boost in (general) analytical thinking that comes from programming. Ditto for potential refreshment in Math.

Who says it needs to make him a better Mayor anyway? What if he just wants to be a better person?

In addition to being a programmer, I happen to be a musician as well...which puts me into contact with a lot of artists. I'm always surprised by how much they could benefit learning programming because a lot of art involves hacking; creating weird one off contraptions...often requiring lots of tedious work. Many want to experiment with technology and art, but are unsure how. Processing could blow some minds. Ditto Overtone.

Using a computer is largely about software; and software is similar to arts and crafts in that it's a reflection of the creator and the tools they used.

Learning about an artist helps you interpret the meaning of their work. Learning about the techniques help you evaluate and appreciate their work.

Learning to code makes you sympathize with the people who wrote the software you use. It helps you understand how software is put together. Which is good, because the more you sympathize with the author and the more you understand how it fits together the easier time you will have using it.

To be fair there are a lot of things I feel everyone should learn. I think it's fair to say though that out of all the ones you could pick, learning to program will be more beneficial practically relative to most others.

> Research voraciously, and understand how the things around us work at a basic level. Communicate effectively with other human beings.

I think this is the heart of the misunderstanding between sides. Learning to program is actually the first step in that. He mentions having "basic internet skills" as a necessary life skill. Learning some programming will greatly facilitate that.

Likewise programming will introduce concepts and develop skills that help you understand technology in general. It even helps in in non-technological areas. It facilitates communication because it forces you to confront and think about how difficult it is to communicate certain things clearly.

A basic grasp of computational thinking has never been more important. It's become a prerequisite for making informed decisions about the world we live in.

The world may or may not need more working programmers (or mathematicians, novelists or plumbers), but why wouldn't we want to teach these elementary skills to as many people as possible?

(incidentally given Michael Bloomberg has a degree in electrical engineering and he founded a multi-billion dollar tech company in the 80s I'm pretty sure he can code already; even if only in fortran)

Being a Mayor means it is his job, not his life, outside of work it's not our business to tell him he's wasting time regardless of whether he's learning to code or reading the first Harry Potter book over and over again.

* taking problems and reducing them to a sequence of repeatable instructions and decision points (branches)

.

I think 'LtC' is irrelevant if defined as:

* I wanna make iPhone apps / Facebook plugins / Instagram ... Where do I get the Magic Handshake for the Mega $$$ ?

Why should a mayor learn to code? Well, I don't expect him to be a Java nut, but I do expect leaders in politics to grasp the basics of privacy, security, productivity, cost and benefits of the coded world surrounding us.

If anything should trickle down, it would be the joy and satisfaction of acquiring a basic competence.

Given the context, this remark is so frivolous I honestly think it may have been made in jest. But just in case it wasn't:

1) Bloomberg has declined the $255,000 salary. He receives $1 per year. This certainly says something about where his priorities lie and how he views his position as the mayor of NYC.

2) Regardless of salary, I have a feeling Bloomberg wouldn't let programming overtake his life and prevent him from fulfilling his responsibilities.

Whats more important is that the computer stops becoming a black box for the average user. They should be taught the basics when it comes to how it works. It would not only help make it easier for the average person to use, it would help with security as well. If we teach basic programming skills to make that happen then I'm all for it. Coding is not the important part, understanding the machine is.

"I wish I'd thought of [this]... The need for people who can read and write has never been greater. This is a fabulous product at the right time" -- Tim O'Reilly, Founder and CEO, O'Reilly Media

"A young man asked me for advice for 'those who aren't people who can read and write'. I said he should try to become a person who can read and write" -- Fred Wilson, Partner, Union Square Ventures

* As in paid to sling code - I don't mean to cast elitist aspersions with the term 'professional'.

The Good

Learning to harness the amazing realm of creativity that computers offer - unlike other fields of engineering, you aren't limited by the need for millions of pounds and a team of people to turn your idea into reality, nor are you constrained by the laws of physics or possibly killing people should your calculations turn out to be incorrect.

For example, I am slowly writing a chess engine, it's such a joy to explore that because I want to and it's interesting to me.

There is a core kick that many people get out of programming, which is when you actually get something working, knowing that you made the computer do that. I wouldn't want to take that away from people.

Another aspect is that, should somebody learn enough to make some aspect of their life easier, that could even be simply learning some vba to automate some process which used to take them several hours, that's worth a lot too.

The Bad

People thinking that coding is easy and straight forward, simply because they've learnt to do something trivial or played around with code a little bit. I have met several professional programmers who have had the same opinion and then gone on to produce the most horrendous, unmaintainable, broken code imaginable and get paid a lot of money to do it all the while producing quite awful software.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jeff's point that this sort of attitude is not something we ought to encourage. If people more generally think of coding as something easy, then the kind of programmers who produce shitty code and think it's fine will be emboldened and we will be doomed to experience yet more broken software in the world. That's the last thing we need.

There's a element of pride in all of this, admittedly, but it's still a very real issue. Good programmers don't get enough respect, nor does good programming and we don't want to play with that.

The cooking example cited by shin_lao is a great analogy - you don't want to discourage people from coding, quite the opposite, but don't think what you do is the same as Pierre Gagnaire, or even the guy working in the kitchen of that cafe you like down the road.

I do want to add that yes, the good can lead to a good professional programmer, but it's critical that it be realised that, as Jeff says, you need to put in your hours, whether the Gladwellian 10k figure is accurate or not.

Best part: he works at a technology company, with a technical staff. That makes millions and millions of dollars a year.

I appreciate Jeff's sentiment, but he's missing the huge swath of people that could benefit from just a little (admittedly not great and half broken) programming knowledge.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a more blunt, standoffish interpretation of Peter Norvig's classic article on the long road to programming competence "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years." Jeff Atwood even references the article in this post, which I find disheartening, as Peter Norvig never once says something like "Don't even bother." Self-improvement is hardly a fruitless endeavor, and while not everyone is capable of writing good code, much less making a living off of it, there are a lot of wonderful things you could learn about yourself through such an undertaking. Plus, there are far less productive/interesting ways for people to spend what precious little time they have.

I certainly can't, but the sample set of one doesn't make for a convincing body of evidence. Moreover he's chosen to cherry pick someone in a position as a figure head/leader who has to delegate nearly all of his work as a function of time constraints. Generally speaking, Michael Bloomberg shouldn't learn to code but it wouldn't hurt if one of his advisers did.

"You should be learning to write as little code as possible. Ideally none."

This conflates individual programming best practices with a desired limit on the total amount of software written across teams and programmers.

"It assumes that coding is the goal."

Wrong. Most proponents of software education want people to understand the domain enough to function and _maybe_ get things done.

I stopped reading at this point.

I mean, even learning Excel and it's various functions is a form of programming and undoubtedly a valuable skills even for a politician.

I also can't help but think baby-steps are required. There are so many people who don't even think about how software is created - learning to code is about three layers away from where they are at to begin with. Simply learning the basics of how software comes to be and a basic underlying structure of a computer would be a good starting point.

Anyone can learn how to write a few lines of a computer programming language. Understanding more of the basic principles of software development and computer architecture would be much more beneficial. That is my personal opinion.

Mr Attwood has a point, in that average Joe certainly doesn't need to program in order to understand their domain better. But I would ask rather then, how can one educate people on how machines work other than writing code ( I seem to remember what little was done in my education about computing, taught me little about the practicality of why in a machine )

This is why I believe the "learn to code" movement is fantastic and an obvious net benefit to society -- the more people we have who understand, even loosely, how integral pieces of our lives function, the better.

To me it has nothing to do with these people producing code or entering the programming profession. I devour books on psychology but I don't entertain the notion of becoming a psychologist. I read them to inform and improve my daily life in some small measure.

Assumptions about how much value is involved for a programming neophyte. Assumptions about what one would do with a little knowledge. Assumptions about how valuable the study of programming is for an individual. Assumptions about what one can be empowered to do, once gaining a little knowledge. I'm sure there are more. Our assumptions may not be equal, but we sure have no problem making them.

No matter if you support Jeff or feel he's way off base, there's a lot of judgment involved this topic, and we should really just stop for a second. As professional developers/programmers/architects/etc., it's easy for us to have opinions on this subject and find any scenario to support any argument one way or the other. The exercise of positing an argument, one way or the other, is actually unnecessary.

For us to judge if something has value to someone else, a little or a lot, makes assumptions about how someone will discover, learn, expand, grow. In spite of our experience in the field, making such broad assumptions might be accurate in some cases, but the variability of outcomes shouldn't be underestimated. Should we encourage everyone to learn? Maybe, but I don't assume it's the best use of time for everyone. Should we encourage everyone to go deep, perhaps enter the profession? I'm not sure of that, either. But I do know that answering those questions with broad absolutes as outcomes requires quite a bit of hubris on my part.

We should also notice that programming itself has a huge gradient in terms of difficulty. Things like Scratch, and other block programming languages make the act of programming easier, where amateur developers can focus more time on trying to solve the problems they are working on, and less time figuring out which parenthesis they missed.

So we have two trends - that programming is becoming easier to do, and that computers are becoming more common. Both of these lead me to the conclusion that not being able to program will eventually be akin to being illiterate. You won't be able to use and modify many of the tools of the future without some programming skill.

Further, many people are developing some of the core programming skills in pieces. Look at http://ifttt.com/ for example. This is an example of using apps as procedure calls, and writing very short subroutines to handle tasks for you. It is a perfect example of how programming is beginning to permeate popular culture.

Soon, telling people not to learn how to program will be much like telling people not to write or not to do math - it will be a bit ridiculous. We will just need to be able to use better systems for keeping track of who is an amateur, and who is a professional, much like we do with writing and mathematics.

How much time would people save in aggregate if they knew a little bit about the tools they use? The average person shouldn't need to know about recursion, but why not a for-loop.

Of course they could be one of the minority and go on to solve one of the big problems and create huge amounts of value. Which would be terrible.

"Coding" is a simple practical skill, at first glance it seems people should learn it when they have a need for it (even if it is just automation of repetitive tasks) or when for some reason they have a deep interest in it. However, lets not forget that computers from the beginning were intended, among other things, to extend our limited human mental capabilities. There is plenty of very valuable general topics in Computer Science that can be learned well only once you know how to program, otherwise you lack a convenient vehicle for exploring those concepts.

People can keep too little in their heads at once to directly deal with complicated structures or processes, but at the same time enough to be able to write programs to deal with them. Algorithms, graphs, probability are ubiquitous concepts that cut through many fields and that can only be explored in full depth via computer programs, and the applications are broad enough that it is not possible to find a ready made program for each of them. For example, in experiments people repetitively make mistakes even in very simple probabilistic considerations, where coding a Monte Carlo simulation would take maybe 20 minutes for a moderately skilled programmer. Even the Mayor could find some benefit in learning algorithmic thinking, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_path_method

In another situation the person again figured out when an app would deliver really awesome results over the bog standard 60's way of doing things, and during the meeting to see if we could help out and all the subsequent revision communication, they just knew a lot about how apps get written. They'd suggest things that made it 10 times easier to write, understood that throwing in an option for everything instead of having a set functionality makes testing and code branches and maintenance a real pain in the ass, approved slight changes that made things a lot easier to write ahead of time instead of demanding meeting the requirements exactly as they were written, etc..

It's sort of like when you hear about someone trained as a doctor and who can also code doing all this awesome stuff. Except in a large organization we already have a ridiculous amount of skilled people available, so it's closer to you just need to know about people's capabilities and how they work to get really close to a similar situation where you can take advantage of both fields. So anyway, even if it isn't someone's job to code, it can be very valuable for them to know how to, and it can make them a lot easier to work with for those of us who do code professionally.

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.

In fact I have argued that installing apps is kind of like coding for noobs. It is modding their world in a very primitive way, by installing functions on their phone. If it was easier to fine tune those functions, it would be a net win.

I think what Jeff is trying to refer to are the people who want to learn how to code (or announce that they're going to learn) for vanity sake. I'm sure when CodeYear launched, there were a lot of people who said "I'm going to learn how to code!" as much as there were people saying "I'm going to start exercising!"

There's a dichotomy here. Some people are just doing it to chime in and feel a part of something, while on the other hand, I'm sure there are some that truly want to learn and improve themselves. The team at CodeYear most definitely were looking to service the latter.

Is it annoying to see your profession, hobby, whatever hawked as a mindless skill that anyone can learn? You bet. But there is certainly value in people learning to code and code well. It's up to those of us who already know how to lead and help focus those who are just getting started. Those that are full of themselves will fall by the wayside.

In any case, you don't learn to code so you can code. You learn to code so you can solve problems in a repeatable way.

Familiarity with those concepts might help bureaucrats with organizational planning even if they never wrote a line of actual computer code. Programming is first about making things so clear and well-understood even a computer can handle them, and only second about actually making a computer do them.

Atwood might have a point in that if someone just goes off to learn to code using a cookie-cutter course, they might not really learn to work with the more important first part, but might end up like a JavaScript programmer who has no idea about Turing-completeness instead: http://reddragdiva.dreamwidth.org/579047.html

http://wharton-vip-webapps-talk.heroku.com/slides/1

To a lot of people (and in the context of my talk, everyone), "learn to code" doesn't mean starting a fun hobby; it means building an MVP. In my talk, I gave several reasons why programming is rewarding and fun, but I also said if you're a business person, doing it yourself might not be the best business decision. The third slide at that URL makes the point that to build the full stack of a Rails application actually requires mastering quite a lot of technologies (fewer if you deploy in a PaaS, of course).

Bloomberg can ask his staff to call him if an email comes in from an important advisor, but only before midnight, except saturdays where he can be called between noon and 2:30. Bloomberg can ask his staff to compare his popularity vs days in office to that of previous mayors.

Learning to program is about harnessing the power of computers to process data and text for you, and about automating repetitive tasks. If you have a competent assistant and staff, you don't need to program, although you may have tasks that require someone in your employ to know how to program.

I just realized that the only way in which Jeff's argument has value is the context of a large organization with managers relating to programmers.

That is, managers should not take the view that their learning to code is going to make them better managers of programmers. It just makes them capable of second guessing their programmers, not really that useful. Even here, its not really that you shouldn't know how to code but that you shouldn't assume that some small or large acquaintance with coding lets you quibble with a structure someone else has taken months to work out. But even here, it might seem like the "skill" required is "not knowing how to program" but really it's not second guessing someone (with enough ego or desperation, a completely unskilled manager may second guess you too and then things get nasty).

So that's what might inspire this unfortunate rant. But the rant itself is just plain wrong.

When I was an undergrad the first lecture I had in CS was my favorite. Still is. It discussed how fundamental scientific discoveries and technology affect how humans view the world and solving problems. To quickly paraphrase as industrialization began to take shape we saw the world as a machine. And so we looked for problems that could be solved by viewing them as a machine. As electricity was discovered and commercialized we saw the world as a circuit. Our brain compared to a circuit, and our nerves were the wires. Is our brain an actual circuit well not entirely, but this idea helped us make other discoveries about the brain. As each of these technologies took root in the minds of humans we shifted our paradigms and began to solve problems differently than prior generations or prior paradigms. These paradigms tend to have long life cycles going on for decades, and that's why they are important to recognize.

The introduction of computers, and particularly computer programming, has changed our paradigm again. How we solve problems with programming is fundamentally different than how we solved it with physics, chemistry, etc. And I think that's the life skill we want to pass along to non-coders because it changes how you approach problems. As we take what was physical and turn it into a digital representation it changes how you use it to solve problems. And when I look at coding in that respect I do think its important to learn, but I wouldn't teach it the same way as most are learning it.

Even the slightest familiarity with programming here will help someone understand that when an offshore development house says "oh, sure, we'll just throw 20 more people at the project", that will not necessarily make it done better or faster. This is a Good Thing. And this has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Bloomberg is implementing his own Ruby or .NET scripts.

It's no different to learn a little bit of coding for building a dynamic website for your community group, even if it's as simple as using HTML, CSS, and Javascript to customize a Drupal or Wordpress site, for example. In fact, you couldn't pick a more appropriate language than Javascript and markup languages for beginners looking to make something useful. We're not asking them to write linked lists or handle correct use of object inheritance.

"It puts the method before the problem. Before you go rushing out to learn to code, figure out what your problem actually is. [...] Does coding solve that problem? Are you sure?"

Did we all learn to code, or program, as a reaction to having an idea that required learning to code or program? Or did some of us learn to code or program out of curiosity, or because we just wanted to, or as a hobby?

The quoted point discredits the latter in favour of the former (as well as applying all manner of extra requirements I decided to trim out).

The article as a whole doesn't respect the fact that people have extra-curricular activities, and hobbies. And side-projects. Should we all discard those things that aren't totally relevant to our full time job?

If somebody comes to you with a problem and the first thing you say is "Oh, yes, of course, just let me start coding." then something is probably going to go wrong with your project. Understand what the problem is, build a model, show it to the person asking, most of the time this person doesn't really know what he wants.

You are all misunderstanding Atwood's article. Think about this: a variable in a programming language isn't really a variable, it's a name for a certain space in memory. Variables exist only in mathematical logic. Mind blown.

Granted I think Jeff's "tone" might come out to some as harshe, but his thought process rings true. His two points at the bottom are the all encompasing truths that make learning coding relevant, but it also helps explane that it is important to learn about everything around us and to not focus too narrowly on one subject.

I read an article not too long ago in one of Quebec's most important newspaper about how programming was becoming an essential skill (up there with reading and basic arithmetic), which it clearly isn't. Of course the author didn't help her case by confusing programming with setting up a wordpress site and changing its CSS.

IMO learning to code can't be a wasted experience. It's just not the life-changing, essential skill that increasingly more people make it out to be.

I don't think anyone is saying that (I hope). Instead we're telling people to learn to code as a means to better understand technology, and then use technology to your favor to improve your life. And when that happens, coding will naturally become more common in your life, even if indirectly (managing others who write code, but this time actually knowing what you're doing). "Coding" is just a more common part of the problem, which has a much deeper meaning. I tell everyone they should learn to code, not because I think they should be writing hundreds or thousands of lines per day like I do. But because they should better understand the world we live in. And learning to code will get you there faster.

Thinking we're telling people they should learn to code just for the sake of coding is completely missing the point. I tell everyone they should learn to code for the exact same reason I tell everyone they should learn science, politics and law. Your life will be better if you're scientifically literate and technologically literate because you'll better understand the world around you.

> can you explain to me how Michael Bloomberg would be better at his day to day job of leading the largest city in the USA if he woke up one morning as a crack Java coder?

That's the wrong question. You should be asking how can be better at his day job if he was technologically literate. And I'm pretty sure anyone here can think of many different awesome ways anyone at all could be better at their job if they knew how to better use technology around them in their favor. Let alone a major of a metropolis.

> so please pardon my skepticism of the sentiment that "everyone can learn to code".

This is a separate problem. I think everyone should learn how to code, how science, politics and law works. For their own sake. Their life will be better if they do. Implying they shouldn't try because they're not good enough is analogous to saying most people shouldn't vote because they're not competent enough to choose the right candidates. The point is, it's in their interest to do so. Now is it in our interest that they do so? And that's a whole separate issue I would really rather not get into.

While professional guitarists take years to master it, anyone can get an acoustic guitar and play 'Hotel California' as hobby.

What the hell is wrong here?

There is no analogy for programming. Most of the communication difficulties programmers have with non-programmers is due to this. The only thing to beware of, is how a little knowledge is also dangerous.

* He is one of the great technological innovators of our time.

* I may be wrong, but he doesn't draw a significant salary from the city, being a billionaire and all.

Same way being able to code is important indirectly.

  With computers you learn how to express what you want precisely and unambiguously.

I would whole-heartedly disagree. I think that everybody should at be proficient in as many practical skills as possible - an in depth knowledge is not required, simply a level of competency and an understanding of good practices and standards.

This applies to coding, plumbing, cooking, construction/DIY, auto repair, soldering and practically any skill that may come in handy.

Coding is like being a baker, or a plumber, a mechanic or a school teacher. It's a useful job in society and no more or less laudable than anything else.

Anyone can love their job - and they ought to. If they do, it doesn't mean everyone should feel the same.

I say, better to affirm how ordinary coding is, rather than how extra-ordinary.

No one is saying that just because you learn to program you will be seeking to do it professionally. I think mayor of New York knows better than to quit his post and start seeking some janitorial programming position.

Less code is better than more code. Even less code probably means you are reusing someone else's code which is even better. And this is the one that programmers can't accept: composable/configurable tools are better than programming languages. Better as in plain better, and better software engineering.

Perhaps teaching some basic digital fluency is a more realistic goal, e.g., the role of computers in society, a primer on hardware, basic security, etc.

Bloomberg didn't say anything about learning to code for professional reasons. If Atwood has forgotten that coding is a rewarding experience on its own, then he is no longer a voice worth listening to.

So maybe New York Mayor don't need to code, but IP lawyers that works on software cases, and politicians voting on software related law - yeah, I think they should.

Sussman has gone on record with a talk titled, "Why Programming is a Good Medium For Expressing Poorly Understood and Sloppily Formulated Ideas." That's probably an everyday use of programming which I've not seen, and it's part of what people learn as one of these "background skills" in college: how to think of things precisely.

I still get a lot of people who are shocked when I teach them relativity. You mean it's not a bunch of mysticism about "mass is squared light energy"? You mean you can prove that this Lorentz transformation doesn't lead to paradoxes? You mean you can derive it with high-school geometry plus some simple axioms that I can clearly understand? The only part which is hard to get across is the causal structure of "light cones", because people don't think in intersecting cones. (I have had some success with calling them "expanding light bubbles," with some reference to supernova explosions.)

Coming back to clarity, and finding it, programming is a good way to pick up that habit, even if you don't code on a day-to-day basis.

There is of course one well-known disadvantage which goes unmentioned in this Coding Horror post: coders are disproportionately more likely to think of legal systems as made of immutable and strict laws. The idea that a judge is supposed to, y'know, judge the human costs of competing legal priorities, and make a decision which is both fair and in keeping with the laws as written -- this discretion seems to be missing. You see this as well with how coders approach pharmacists: it's as if pharmacy was no longer a medical discipline and was somehow relegated to counting pills. No, that's what we code the robots for. Stop equating people with robots.

But if we remain sensitive to the humanity of others, then being able to code probably functions to a net benefit, much like Jeff's example of plumbing does. I mean, there are still occasions where you need a professional, but everyone should have disassembled the pipes to their sink at some point in their life, just for the experience.

Next he should tell us to leave math to the mathematicians.

How about learning to distinguish bad code from good code?

How about learning to look at Atwood's code with a view to answering some questions: 1. How does this guy's mind work? 2. Can he think clearly or does he add needless complexity to everything?

Then making a decision whether you want to use his work or not.

There are innumerably unpredictable circumstances that may arise in which it will prove useful.

Bureaucrats in general could all profit from some minimal understanding of programming if only to stop them saying things like: 'the computer says: no!'

Once they figure out again that's it's usually tedious and unglamorous work that doesn't pay particularly well on average they'll lose interest again.

http://accidentalhacker.com/post/16116466587/please-dont-lea...

We have a sense that, because some 80 (possibly 90) percent of programmers write shitty code, that encouraging more people to program is going to flood the field with mediocre programmers and that we're personally going to have to maintain their legacy monstrosities. Somehow, I'm guessing that I'm not going to be maintaining Bloomberg's business-logic DSL any time soon.

I think it's good that we're making people more aware of computer science and that programming is becoming cool again. I'm not a fan of tech bubble "coolness" (where traditional business types move into tech startups, usually in executive positions, because of the trend, but have no real interest in technology) but if people develop a genuine interest in how computers and programs work, that's great. It'll have all kinds of ripple effects: better and more widespread CS education (even in grade school), increasing technical literacy in important organizations, increasing appreciation for technical talent in the world at large, and quite possibly a more rational approach to business, government, and politics.

The real problem we face, in terms of the "Why do we have to deal with so much shitty code?" question isn't that these bad programmers are untalented. It's not a low IQ problem. It's a problem of dysfunctional work environments (due to a low appreciation for what programmers do in many companies) and a lack of incentive to improve. These "bad programmers" stop growing, because the bulk of development jobs don't encourage people to grow, so a lot of people end up learning basic Java best practices and that's it. They never learn Unix and its philosophy, functional programming and recursion, architecture, or logic. They get to the 1.2-1.3 level (scale here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajector... ) and either go into management or plateau. That's because the typical JavaJob setup is designed to bring up the rear while holding back the best, so people get into a mentality where they lose faith in the capability of the individual developer and management appears like the only place where it's possible to have real accomplishments.

Actually, if anything's going to liberate the horde of 1.2 developers from their JavaJobs, it's going to be making programming fun and cool again-- reminding these people that coding isn't just something they do for one job, but that it's a valuable and extremely versatile skill, if they keep improving despite having no immediate economic pressure to do so.

I basically completely disagree with this submission.

Become a programmer, by all means.

But please do not become another Jeff Atwood.