Hacker News Reader

With a couple of months of programming knowledge, I wrote a program that saved my company $2MM/year. The key was combining knowledge of the business processes with some knowledge of programming. There were people with knowledge of one or the other, but not both.

I still can't write a basic app, but that doesn't matter. I can do things that provide massive value, and I wouldn't be able to do them without programming knowledge.

I think Jeff is underestimating how much time the average office worker would save simply by learning Excel Macros or some basic scripting. Learning to program is really damn valuable, especially in fields where most people don't know any programming.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. My line of work could be made much easier through some very simple software. The only reason that software doesn't exist is because (I assume that) nobody with programming knowledge understands the needs of someone who does my job. Or cares, for that matter. There aren't many of us.

I'm working my way through Ruby on Rails tutorials simply because I think there's tremendous value to be created without the need for anything groundbreaking. Just tailored.

And if I'm right, I'll be able to afford to hire someone to fix my crappy code.

If you are right there are probably a hundred people on here able to provide a working MVP alongside you and do it faster, cleaner and pick up on solutions you cant possibly know yet. Be a domain expert.

But learn to code anyway :-)

I'm sure anyone here could do that. But how many people here are looking for a non technical co-founder? Coders are solving their own problems, and until I can hack together a prototype I don't think I'll be able to draw any attention from real programmers.

I think I'd actually prefer a pure domain expert who can express their business and ideas well than a half-assed programmer.

No offence, but what often ends up happening is you turn into a know-it-all client. "This should only take an hour. You just have to loop over these results and format them...".

Finding a technical co-founder is a sales process where you need to prove that it's a good idea and that you've made a significant investment yourself (I would prefer if it wasn't code) like thinking through the interface, and as many use cases / stories as you can think of, and describing in detail the problem(s) being solved.

The pitches we hate are the guys who know you through a friend who want you to make a Groupon-like application for their specific market, without having invested more than the 5 minutes it took to write it down while baked. I'm still not going to be sold on this idea even if they manage to throw together some terrible PHP site that sort of acts like a real application.

That being said, I'm in the boat that thinks at least some rudimentary programming skills would be useful for everyone.

> you need to prove that it's a good idea and that you've made a significant investment yourself ... like thinking through the interface, and as many use cases / stories as you can think of, and describing in detail the problem(s) being solved.

That sounds exactly like the skillset of a good software engineer. This whole debate is about the fact that a whole bunch of people don't know how to break down a large problem into small logical pieces.

"describing in detail the problem(s) being solved" is about the most concise and accurate description of programming I can think of. Asking someone non-technical to do this is like asking a ramen noodle-eater to describe in detail the process of flambéing Steak Diane.

I agree it's a good skill to have in many careers, software engineer included, but it is definitely not the definition of programmer. If you wanted to map this skill to a profession, I'd probably go with Business Analyst being the closest.

Breaking a problem down into solvable parts is something I was taught in math and it was invaluable. I'd written programs before and after that, so I wouldn't say that this technique makes you a programmer. Rather it's an approach you'll need to be a good programmer.

Asking someone non-technical to describe the problem they want to solve in detail is completely within the realm of reason. Non-technical != moron. Knowing how to do this, does not make you a programmer. Likewise, being a programmer doesn't make you good at this.

What about knowing enough coding to understand the amount of work that needs to be put in to transform an idea into reality? Also to be able to construct the interface is easier when you know some code. Those are some reasons why I'm investing time to learn programming.

I think the assumption that you will understand the amount of work needed for a given solution is part of the problem. Estimating a project accurately is NOT a skill you're going to pick up by learning a bit of programming.

As a programmer of many years, I still miss-calculate the amount of work required to solve a problem. It's something you get better at over time, but I totally sucked at it when I was starting out as a programmer. It's one of the hardest skills to attain IMO.

I think it's great that more people learn to code. I'm just saying it's not some magic faerie dust that solves all your problems. It's just another piece of the puzzle.

Regardless of one's feelings w/r/t the Atwood OP, it's hard to argue that programmers often conflate programming with solving problems. They are distinct concepts.

"Coders are solving their own problems" , yes many are but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be better served financially by solving someone elses.

Not by me. I can't afford to pay them unless I can raise some money. I don't see how I can raise the money unless I can cobble together a prototype myself... even if just to show that my idea is viable and that I'm serious about it.

I wrote an online attendance system for my school, which often come with way more features than we need and cost in the range of $50k. It's not $2 million, but $50k is a teacher's salary. In education, that's huge. It took me 2 weeks to set up, and another 4 weeks of testing with teachers to iron out all of the bugs, but now it is used every day by all of our teachers.

I've also used my ability to code to develop learning apps for my students. It's been incredibly valuable in my career.

"The key was combining knowledge of the business processes with some knowledge of programming."

Knowledge of programming wasn't required to save your company 2mm per year. All it would have taken is someone recognizing there was a problem that could be solved by programming. If you did the job with a couple of months of programming knowledge someone could have been easily hired to do this job, right? They just had to realize there was a problem to be solved.

It seems to me that someone who had any knowledge of what computers could do could have saved your company that money. Just like a person working in a commercial kitchen that wasn't a carpenter could have hired people to improve efficiency and save money.

Knowing that programming could solve a problem requires knowledge of programming. Someone with zero programming experience doesn't look at a problem and say, "Yeah I can write a script to solve that."

Sorry you're wrong based on my many years experience with dealing with non-programmers and this exact situation.

Seeing what is already being done with computers on a daily basis gives people knowledge of what can be done without knowledge of programming. Knowing programming but not enough could also be an impediment as well. You may not realize there are simple ways of solving an issue that to you with your limited knowledge seems like it could take a tremendous amount of effort. There is an expression "a little knowledge can be dangerous".

And how many people are going to take the time to learn to code enough anyway to see all the possibilities?

I'd say they're right, based on my many years experience dealing with non-programmers and this exact situation.

Knowledge of programming and the business are both important and key here, but it's the slant towards business that can give someone the leg up on saving companies money. It isn't always about simple data entry or automation, it's going about your daily job with the insights and skills that basic programming provide that allow people to recognize where a new script or application could improve their business process in some way.

Business processes can be extremely complicated, and you can't easily impart business knowledge and processes upon a programmer in a manner sufficient to give them the ability to recognize where their skills can be best applied in a business.

If "a little knowledge can be dangerous", why learn anything ever? That's a really pisspoor reason to tell people to be ignorant.

"Seeing what is already being done with computers on a daily basis gives people knowledge of what can be done without knowledge of programming"

Not true at all, people can use computers every day of their life in their job and still not even understand where a window goes when they minimise it.

The guy below said it before me. I have seen things that could be handled with a good programmer, and I am not one just yet.

But you have knowledge of programming, correct? Or are you saying you have absolutely no idea how to program?

I have no knowledge of programming.I downloaded Greenfoot to start learning Java in my spare time and I am learning from step one.

Exactly what I came here to say.

Let us not forget the difference between scripting and software. Shell scripts or bookmarklets or greasemonkey/browser plugins - These can be useful to the majority of workers.

Many have a specific problem that could be made much easier by coding but never will be address by professional coders.

In terms of capital + human capital multiplying your effort, programming is pretty hard to beat. Compare sales calls, meetings with important people, instructions delivered to staff, farming with tractor; even hands-free investing requires a lot of time.

I think the most similar skill to coding is writing. John Updike remarked, several decades ago, that fiction creates value without destroying anything (ok, a trivial fraction of the value). But it's clearly not just about being able to put some words on a page.

Sure, I think he's also underestimating what percent of average office workers actually do have some of the talents and inclination to become skilled professional programmers. Despite excelling at math and doing some basic programming (in qbasic in fact) as a kid, it didn't occur to me to major in CS until I was halfway through college. I think broader exposure can only help people realize that programming is something they actually are interested in.

Brilliant. Thanks for sharing.

Well said. I wholly agree with "learn to code" != "become a programmer".

Learning programming has helped me in many other walks of life. It has taught me that every problem can be tackled with a systematic approach, given enough time. I like to think that helps me to notice things that would have gone unnoticed without. More than anything else, it is this approach, enforced by programming, for which I hold gratitude. Critical thinking.

I see ... so we're watering down the profession to the point where it is all inclusive. Can I start calling myself a doctor the next time I administer first aid?

To turn your statement around, are you saying that no one should bother learning first aid unless they are planning on becoming a medical professional?

I am trying to say there is a distinction between those who are trained professionals and those who have basic knowledge. I am getting the feeling people are taking this issue personally. If you want to become a trained professional, please do so. As for me, I have paid my dues and consider myself one.

Well, it is your camp that is equating "learning programming" with "becoming a programmer."

I don't know why you should feel threatened or defensive about the fact that a lot of people want to understand your basic skill set. I don't know many mechanical engineers who discourage people from learning to fix their own cars.

Thank you for saying exactly what was in my head and saving me some typing. Learning to code is to being a professional programmer as learning to write is to being a journalist/editor

>There is nothing wrong with Jeff's BASIC example, if that is where the mayor of NYC ends up.

Are you sure about it?

What if he suddenly starts thinking that he actually knows what goes into building software?

I have this horror scene in my mind where Bloombergs of this world are terrorizing their developers, with their "deep knowledge" of computers that they picked up by doing an online JavaScript course, I mean "code year".

Democratization of programming is a lofty ideal, but in the reality anybody who wants to learn to code will do so if he has a computer. This latest fad is nothing more than a trivialization of a complex skill and an attempt by some non-technical hipsters to be even more hip. If plumbing was cool we would see the same people vowing to learn how to plumb this year.

Keep in mind how Bloomberg made the majority of his wealth. He has an idea of how software and hardware are made, deployed, and updated.

Bloomberg = a hypothetical non-techy boss

I can't tell if you meant that in a pejorative way, but are you sure? BSEE, started a "big data" company a thousand years ago which is still the "Xerox" of its industry.

I doubt he solders today, but he has the background to understand the interplay of software, hardware, delivery, etc. He has been noted to be very big into prototyping technology with his company's platform. You might say agile.

A good friend of mine recently tweeted[0]: "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it; those who do not study mathematics or programming are doomed to repeat themselves."

[0]: https://twitter.com/#!/Sniffnoy/status/201187266197065729

Oh hey, so this is why this is getting so many retweets.

Awesome. Thanks.

Exactly my thoughts.

For me it was like reading: "Writing is not a basic skill; we have plenty of books out there. Most people, when they learn to write, start writing books that are of awful quality!"

> 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.

If the benefit of everyone learning programming is logical/critical thinking, breaking a problem down and thinking of edge cases, etc, then why not focus on teaching everyone how to do that instead?

A good way of doing that may very well be teaching some form of programming, but unless you explicitly state the goals up front a lot of people are very likely to miss the point completely and either teach just programming, or learn just how to code.

You could do that, but one of the best things with coding is that you get instant gratification and constant feedback.

"Hey look, my computer just said Hello to the world!"

The ability to play with scenarios while exercising your logical critical thinking and to get instant feedback is essential to learning.

I liken it to the difference between learning photography in the film days vs. digital. I bought an SLR in the late 80s but it was very expensive and time consuming to get good. I had to buy and use up a roll of film, take some notes about when, where and how I made the shot, then pay to get them developed. With digital, I see the shots I make instantly, and I can make mistakes and try again without incurring constant film and development costs.

I don't understand the distinction you raise in the first paragraph. Coding is programming. Just because everyone can divide doesn't mean everyone is trying to be a mathematician, but I think everyone should (at least have the opportunity to) learn long division. Programming may not be the fourth "R", but maybe "Research" is!

I think the important distinction would be how much additional knowledge you need to solve the problems you solve. I'm gonna call the "coding" "scripting" for now, and the "programming" "programming", because these are older and in my opinion better terms.

Scripting basically takes the problem and a language and directly transforms the problem into a working program. You don't need fancy algorithms, you don't need fancy background knowledge in programming topics, you need python, a python dictionary and directory access (for example). Or Excel and VB and a few arrays and a formula.

On the other hand, heavier programming would require more and more thought when actually implementing a solution to a problem. Efficiency might become a large concern earlier, you might need more complicated algorithms sooner and so on. Think about every occasion where you transformed a problem into a graph problem and applied some graph search, or graph coloring to this problem.

If I understand "coding" as "scripting" and "programming beyond coding" as "programming", the distinction makes sense, and it makes sense to call for more people with the ability to script simple things, because scripting is not too hard and saves a lot of time.

Being a programmer is really really really fun the first few years. Kinda like playing video game. However, it eventually become something that is can be unhealthy. It really undermine other sensory input from the body. And primarily focus on the mind and finger interaction.

However, given the current state of the world, where many things are in one way or another controlled by software. It would be a good idea to have a skill related to coding, just to know if something is possible with code. And understand that it is not just magic under the hood.

When I said programmer, I meant a professional programmer - as an occupation.

As opposed to a professional "coder"? (I also see "programmer" as a more distinguished title and I prefer it to "coder" (and even "software engineer"), but I don't understand any of these terms to have any generally-accepted definition; personally it is only a matter of taste.)

As opposed to vocational coding/programming/hacking. Seems like you're being facetious for the point of it?

I'm not trying to be facetious, just misunderstanding whatever point original commenter is making. "Most people don't what programming even looks like"? I don't think that is true because most people can search for code samples if needed.

You're missing the point there: if someone's looking for code samples, they're already learning to code.

"If the mayor of NYC wants to learn to program in his spare time, why the hell not?"

I agree totally, not only would it be good for him but it sets a good example for his constituency (because as a basic competence it is good for anyone).

You seem to be a bit disconnected from reality. If I told any one of my friends who are not programmers by trade to look for code samples, they would either not understand what I'm talking about, or simply not know where to look.

Most people don't even have the slightest idea what kind of problems software can solve. Jeff Atwood seems to interpret "learn to code" as "learn to set the DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH variable". Others—myself included—think that having at least a bit of exposure to programming provides you with a better overall understanding of how computers operate.

I don't think it's necessary to have that understanding. But neither is speaking a second natural language. Apart from acquiring the skills themselves, learning any of those will teach you meaningful things about yourself and your environment, which seems to be worthwhile.

Most people don't even have the slightest idea what kind of problems software can solve.

I was once told by a good friend of mine in industry X[1] that people in that industry have money but they don't know whats possible - they don't know what could be automated or calculated with computers and so they don't do it, even though it would provide a lot of value to them.

[1] In general, I think the industry is irrelevant and this applies to most industries that don't already directly employ programmers. There are often already some high tech firms that do and they have a huge advantage over the masses that don't. In this particular case, the industry was the betting (horses) industry and there are actually plenty of firms that are high tech and hire programmers and mathematicians and such to create complex software, but I think his point is that there are still a lot of smaller firms and people who spend a lot of money that still don't know what is actually possible. He since moved to a much more high tech company, but he still does most (if not all) of his complex risk assessment modeling in excel.

You are very wrong about this - people who know how to "search for code samples" know what programming looks like, but they are far from the majority.

I, for one, wish more people understood what programming "looks like", so that I could actually talk to people about what I do without them being completely confused. People can visualize what nearly every other profession does day-to-day, but what programmers do is a complete mystery to most people. I tell people that I'm a writer for a language with a very structured grammar, but that's only part of the story.

> People can visualize what nearly every other profession does day-to-day

No they don't. They know an architect draws pictures of buildings. An engineer draws pictures of a bridge and hammers away at a calculator (actually the first thing most people think of with engineer is probably either boats or trains or Star Trek). A banker sits and acts like a total dick. What architects, engineers and bankers really do is a complete mystery to people.

When someone asks what you do and they do not have any domain specific knowledge, you say you write applications, you're a programmer. That's all they want to know, they don't care what the details of what you write are. They don't want to know the differences between languages. They don't want to know what a structured grammar is and why you care about it. Those are details of your job, that's not what they were asking.

"I'm a system administrator. I keep computers working." That is the maximum extent people want to know about what I do. They're being polite in asking, they don't really want to know details. And at the end of the day they still think that all I do is sit on my ass and look at a computer screen. Just like the way they visualize a programmer, and a banker and a ...

I don't buy it. An architect designs structures - most people don't know what the actual work of designing a structure looks like, but they know what a design of a structure looks like. An engineer figures out how to make a structure stand - most people don't know what the process of making a structure stand is, but they know what a standing structure looks like. A banker moves money around, people don't know how that is accomplished, but they know what a loan looks like. Most people I've met don't have any idea what a computer program looks like, not even that it involves text. I didn't say anything about the differences between languages, and I think you misunderstood my comment about "structured grammar". I didn't mean it as a specific feature of what I do, but as a generic feature of what a computer program is. I only meant that the closest analogy I've found to programming that most people can relate to is writing.

"I keep computers working" and "I write computer programs" are on opposite sides of a conceptual understanding chasm - most people have tried keeping computers working, even if they hated it and failed miserably, but most people haven't tried programming, and don't really know what the concept means.

Ignore the word, what does it even matter? He's simply taking about someone taking it up as a profession vs knowing roughly how it works

Think of the difference between learning to cook and becoming a cook, or learning to golf and becoming a golfer.

One refers to picking up some skills for any of a variety of reasons. The other refers to embarking on a career.

Agree with both sides. The meme of everyone needs to learn code needs context.

Should everyone have an understanding- probably. Should everyone build a public bit of code - probably not.

Coding as a hobby is great but making strategic decisions still requires experts.

> most people don't know what programming even looks like

My mom recently (2012) just asked me if when I'm programming, the screen is full of symbols, kind of like the matrix.

Many people I know consider computers "illogical". We could do a lot to help people understand how a computer works, and the best way is through programming.

And I convinced a friend of mine that in Python, we only code using the letter "s". Why do you think it's called Python, after all? She believed me.

To be fair, all programs sort of get reduced to 1s and 0s. Given this fact, I don't consider the idea of coding only with the letter 's' that much of a stretch. You know, in lisp I code with parentheses!

I know you're joking and this isn't really too relevant to your comment at all, but the 1s and 0s thing that non-techies fixate on is just stupid.

Programming (and computers in general) have nothing to do with 1s and 0s and saying stuff like "at the end of the day, its all 1s and 0s" is like saying that at the end of the day banking just comes down to scrap pieces of pressed tree pulp or a bakers job is just about a bunch of grain or a teachers job reduces to sitting in a room for a few hours or whatever silly analogy you want to dream up.

All of these things are implementation details that, really, are irrelevant to pretty much everyone everywhere. If you are dealing with low level digital systems you will encounter 1s and 0s (and analog voltage and resistance and capacitance and a whole lot more besides), but usually (especially when building something complex like a computer) this gets abstracted away pretty quickly.

For the record, I was mostly serious. I was half-joking about the Lisp part. This is not really related to your comment, but just to clarify: I'm serious that coding using just 's' doesn't sound that unreasonable. If you're a professional programmer, sure, you know you need more characters than that to be productive. But I wouldn't fault a lay-person, even one who has some knowledge of coding, for believing someone who said they programmed using only 's'. Plenty of weird programming languages are possible. Take a look at http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Reverse_a_string#Brainf.2A.2A.2A.

I get that, I meant you're joking in that I don't think you believe that programming or computers really does just boil down to 1s and 0s in a way thats at all relevant to programming - there is, of course, a tiny grain of truth in that, but not one that is IMHO at all important, though most non-techies don't know that and they're told that computers are just 1s and 0s.

I did not at all think you were joking when you asserted this:

Given this fact, I don't consider the idea of coding only with the letter 's' that much of a stretch.

Which I completely agree with.

Also, while being a joke, there is a language that uses only semicolons: http://pksunkara.github.com/semicolon/

Actually, you can get pretty close by coding in Semicolon:

http://pksunkara.github.com/semicolon/

Actually, APL programmers do code with a screen full of symbols.

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_triangle#APL

I'm beginning to think your mom is smarter for not knowing how to code, because she hasn't been biased yet by exposure to mainstream tools.

I understand your point, but I am having a hard time accepting use of the word "smarter" to describe ignorance.

Perhaps there is value in a blank slate, but that is definitely not being smart.

There's a usefulness to coming at a problem from a completely new direction, but it's orthogonal by virtue of being orthogonal. Why is the alphabet the best way? Couldn't we express ideas better? (And I actually keep an eye on the constructed language space, so I actually know people who say, "Yes.")

Also wanted to come here and say this, thanks for pointing it out.

It's like novelists novelists being afraid of people learning to write because then they'd take their jobs or scientists being afraid that people learnt physics, mathematics, cosmology...

One case I can think of... religious priests are sometimes afraid of people actually reading their religious books aren't they? :-P

Even "programmer" is, in my opinion, too broad of a term. And the difference between "coder" and "programmer" is not really that clear.

Every time a good term, besides "coder" and "programmer", appears, it gets overused by the wrong people and losts it's power. I strongly believe that what Jeff is describing could be called an "Information Systems Designer", but the term "Information Systems" has such a baggage of bullshit consulting that it can't be used.

I couldn't agree more. If nothing else, learning to code is an incredibly useful thought experiment for anyone who enjoys using their brain in new and interesting ways. So what if you never make a cent? How many of us started coding simply because we were passionate about it and it got us excited?

I can't tell you how excited I was when I wrote a simple joystick driven paint program for my Atari 400 in Atari BASIC :)

I actually just had to do some basic plumbing, with duct tape :-). I'm sure glad I understand the basics of how water flows through a pipe.

The problem is that the underlying message implies that the Mayor of NYC can be gainfully employed as a programmer after a year of solving code snippets. Which is BS and very misleading. More at http://blog.sidu.in/2012/05/everyone-should-learn-programmin...

Exactly. Not everyone is going to be an engineer, accountant. Yet everyone learns math at school. Same for biology, physics ...

I look at it as a useful life skill like cooking your own meals, doing your own laundry, changing a tire, making minor household repairs, etc.

I agree - and would specifically add things like changing the washer on a leaky tap, or fixing the toilet float...you know, basic plumbing for "those who aren't plumbers".