The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. Consider it a guess about Jeff, and a general message about other people who feel the same way.
But Atwood didn't say that. All he said was that it's a trade like Plumbing and not a life skill like being able to read.
>The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing.
But programmers DON'T mostly say that. In fact, I had a very animated discussion with Randy Stross of New York Times at YCombinator where EVERY programmer around was arguing that programming has become an important life skill and should be taught in high school. Of course, this is anecdotal but even the recent articles refuting this on HN shows most programmers are for everyone learning programming.
I don't know you as well as other members of the community here but this article seems to be really harsh and doesn't even touch the argument that Atwood made in his article.
Wow, alright I'm just going to stop replying to people who can't even read the title, but still claim it's not saying what it says.
The title is a highlight of his article. Presenting the title of his article as a summary, as you do in your article and repeatedly in your comments, is disingenuous and misleading.
I didn't think much of it. The tangent about Atwood's son was completely tangential and unrelated. Atwood's argument was not about computer science education, it wasn't about meritocracy. You completely missed the point.
I'll reiterate that I do agree with most of what you wrote and I upvoted this submission because of what you wrote, I just don't think the stance in this (and other) comments is at all valid given the title of your own article.
Consider writing a blog post that actually responds to Jeff Atwood's post, rather than a straw man constructed from his title?
But so is basic electronics and basic electrical engineering. Where do we draw the line in the modern world?
The current system does not let you "learn what you want to." It teaches you an established core curriculum.
Personally I think an overhaul of the education system would be far more productive than letting internet celebs duke it out until their agenda gets pushed down the throats of K-12 students.
Partially yes, partially no, and for different reasons than claimed in this article. He does argue that fewer people should pursue programming, yes, but it's because they would be more effective elsewhere. His thesis is that people decide that the solution is for them to write code before they know what the problem is, and that some people make careers that follow that trail of thought. From a purely efficient viewpoint, a work force is more effective when there are fewer people mis-fit into it.
A guess about his motivations? So basically, this was a strawman to vent frustration onto?