"I am all for getting more non-programmers programming..."
May I ask why? I completely disagree with that statement and all the initiatives pushing that agenda.
May I ask why? I completely disagree with that statement and all the initiatives pushing that agenda.
Today, most of the important ideas -- their genesis and dissemination -- are in computer form. I would argue that making everyone a programmer is not the goal, but widespread computer literacy, a familiarity and comfort with computer use, database searches, research skills, is the modern parallel to encouraging print literacy in years past.
If all the automobile designers and mechanical engineers were to vanish today, do you think lay people would be able to hop into the driver's seat and take over the job? The same is true for nearly every industry, and always has been.
The only reason we've come this far as a civilization is because we record what we learn and pass the knowledge on to future generations of people who are interested in that knowledge.
Not everyone has the same interests, and barring an apocalypse, no one needs to know it all at once. Programming is no different.
Sure, things like reading, computer literacy, math, biology, basic problem solving, etc. are important base skills for everyone to know. Once those foundations are in place, delving further is a matter of preference, and not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics.
I'm astounded at how much better the spelling and grammar of the commentariat has gotten since the early days of ubiquitous internet. Most people seem to be reading something every day (even if it's about Beyonce) and that means that their ability to read about what they want to know more about has gotten better. The effect of this newly capable public on entrenched power structures can't help but to ultimately be positive.
I understand how the same case for computing could be made.
>Not everyone has the same interests, and barring an apocalypse, no one needs to know it all at once. Programming is no different.
knowing everything at once != knowing how to program
We're not that smart, people. The same case could be made for not teaching people how to cook, or drive a car. What makes something a "base skill"?
I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. Fair enough, but in a democracy, that chasm cannot grow too large before a citizen's right to choose becomes meaningless.
> ... not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics.
Not the topic. We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.
No, not exactly. I'm referring to the tendency for most people to be experts in one or two fields and mostly ignorant in others that are not related to their core competency.
>We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.
That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist", nor does learning math translate to "being a calculus professor."
No, people should know how to use computers which does translate to "know how to program" but not "be a professional software developer", just like knowing how to effectively function in a world with written language does translate into "knowing how to read and write" but not "be a novelist".
They do, however, need to know how to use a computer. This is an argument for computer literacy, not computer programming literacy.
Besides, we all drive cars and we all use refrigerators and air conditioners daily. Not everyone knows how those work or is able to fix them. If they did, we'd be a world of "jacks of all trades and experts in none." That's not what got us to this point as a technologically advanced civilization.
It's far more important for everyone to know how to drive properly and safely than it is for them to know how to perform maintenance on their cars. In fact, having everyone do their own car maintenance would probably be just as dangerous as putting programming into the hands of people who don't know how to avoid phishing attacks and computer viruses.
If you can comprehend written procedures for a task, you can comprehend programming (you might not be able to understand algorithmic analysis, but that's a different issue.)
People (especially people that are otherwise knowledge workers) that "can't" do that largely can't because they've been taught that computers are deep magic accessible only to an elite priesthood.
I don't think we are at the point where truly universal programming literacy is necessary or practical in the very short term, but just as with writing before it became something universally expected, I think we are at least at the point where we should start to see it as part of the basic repertoire of knowledge workers, even those whose primary job isn't producing computer code.
We improved classical literacy by turning people into readers and writers. We improve computer literacy by teaching people to become programmers, not by trying to dumb down programming to something that the plebes can understand. I'm all for turning more non-programmers into programmers. The issue isn't that as much as it is the issue of this fantasy that if it wasn't for those dastardly geeks who want to be lazy and charge a ton of money for it, everybody could program with no real work, which is just pure bull puck.
That's the first step toward creating a programming priesthood, a very bad idea. Software is as software does. Good software can be identified without requiring its creator to have some credential attesting to his ability to craft "professional-level" code, no more than a writer needs a certificate attesting to his ability to write a readable novel.
For proof of this thesis, one need only look at Microsoft -- until recently the top of the programming profession, highest salaries, copious certificates and assertions of competence, and the worst software.
http://www.vexite.com/2005/ending-microsofts-cowboy-spaghett...
My previous post:
"From a practical standpoint, I really wish everyone was taught enough programming to know how to automate basic manipulation of text data. I see way too many people editing long lists of data by hand, when there are much better ways to go about it (even Excel works great for this kind of stuff).
Just knowing this setup below can let you do some really power automation of manual tasks and can save you a lot of time.
Example template in Python:
import csv
with open('mydata.csv', 'r') as csvfile:
reader = csv.reader(csvfile, delimiter=',', quotechar='"')
for row in reader:
# Data manipulation hereLink: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6237430
I'd also recommend looking at Jach's post (the child post of my post in the link) - I thought he made some really good points/critiques about 'tool-based' vs 'concept-based' teaching.
Your Excel example, to me, falls into that category. Learning to use a word processor or spreadsheet application is something that is increasingly necessary in today's world, and I am often surprised by how few people (including, shockingly, many software developers) know how to effectively use them. I just don't feel like taking it all the way to "everyone must learn to program" is a good idea, any more than "everyone must learn to perform open-heart surgery" is.
Based on your comments, I think we actually agree.
Occasionally they end up coming to me to ask for help. Now they have to spend their time teaching me the intricacies of their domain, and then I have to spend my time coding up a solution, which might be wrong because of some subtle detail they felt was too obvious to mention. And now we're both stuck in a situation where every time something changes instead of just fixing it, they have to come to me and first explain exactly what they need to change and then wait for me to have time to fix it.
At the end of the day this isn't productive use of anybodies time.