Hacker News Reader

> "Aww isn't that cute! A musician/artist having an intellectual idea that isn't completely terrible -- like a quaint little animal trying to imitate us true intellectuals up here in our high tower of superiority." I exaggerate, but this is basically the elitist mentality I perceive behind the actual quote. Am I way off base here?

I get the impression that this comment has more to do with contrasting will.i.am's statement with the other statements on code.org for effect than it has to do with specifically putting down will.i.am.

With this comment, the linked piece seems to be implying that the statements made by Zuckerberg, Clinton et al are inspired by wrongheaded beliefs about the purpose of education, and that only will.i.am's statement comes anywhere close to hitting the right tone. I read this comment as genuinely complimentary, albeit weak.

As I read it, Bret Victor's critique of code.org is more nuanced than the usual complaints: it stems from a disagreement with code.org's implicit claim that programming should be taught in schools because programming is currently a high-value skill, in terms of the amount of money you can earn by doing it professionally. He seems to think that school shouldn't be primarily about training people to be "useful" to employers or the government in the short term. I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

> To me, this comes off as a desperate attempt to defame this movement because it threatens to demote the status of basic technology roles from "elite magic" to "basic literacy" -- and to some people, apparently that's not an amazing social good, but a terrifying prospect of power loss. Am I way off base here in perceiving this?

In the context of Victor's body of work (which is focused more or less entirely on making the incredible power of computers more accessible to more people), I have a hard time believing that any such motivation underlies the linked piece. While I think there definitely exists such a motivation in other criticisms of the learn-to-code meme, I don't think it has much to do with Victor's critiques.

> With this comment, the linked piece seems to be implying that the statements made by Zuckerberg, Clinton et al are inspired by wrongheaded beliefs about the purpose of education, and that only will.i.am's statement comes anywhere close to hitting the right tone. I read this comment as genuinely complimentary, albeit weak.

Fair enough, but is Gates's claim that "learning to write programs stretches your mind" really that far off or that much worse? Or that "an understanding of computer science is becoming increasing essentially in today's world"? Maybe it's a trivial point, but is it as offensive as this link makes it out to be?

I think the point Bret Victor is trying to make is that what he perceives as the real value of programming (its use as a powerful extension of the programmer's cognitive abilities) is absent entirely from the perception of programming as an inherently good thing that code.org and related groups are pushing.

Programming is, and ought to be seen as, merely a means to an end – not an end in and of itself. A movement that gets programming into to schools by claiming code is itself a Good Thing will inevitably bring into existence a programming curriculum that ignores the important abstract stuff about coding-as-a-concept (the new ways in which computers can extend the mind) and focuses instead on the concrete "implementation details" of programming today (text files, the command line, and all that other baggage from 20 years ago with which programmers are still saddled).

Basically: the reasoning is important, the code isn't, and code.org is all about the code.

> Programming is, and ought to be seen as, merely a means to an end – not an end in and of itself.

This is the essential piece I thought Bret made clear by highlighting the choice quotes from Seymour Papert.

Treating programming as a means to an end has very pragmatic ramifications for programming. It means we can question the value of our tools when they do not serve our goals. Otherwise we are the mercy of them (and entrench the status quo as state-of-the-art).

One question I've been grappling with is why it takes so many human-hours of work to produce conceptually simple programs.

Except that these quotes are also about coding as the mreasnsd to an end. The ends may not be as elevated, but employment, pride, security and such are powerfully motivating ends. I think its really amazing to think about the intellectual power of coding -- I think philosophy tends to pay more attention to physics and not enough to engineering -- but more immediate human goals are perfectly appropriate ones to serve as the ends for which learning to code is the means.

> As I read it, Bret Victor's critique of code.org is more nuanced than the usual complaints: it stems from a disagreement with code.org's implicit claim that programming should be taught in schools because programming is currently a high-value skill, in terms of the amount of money you can earn by doing it professionally. He seems to think that school shouldn't be primarily about training people to be "useful" to employers or the government in the short term. I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

I'm inclined to agree (with what you explained) as well. But, if this is conveyed by the article/graphic, it sure is subtle. I think it would have been a better article if he just explained his complaint (if it is as you say), rather than making a mockery of celebrity quotes with big sarcastic quotes next to pictures of their faces.

> In the context of Victor's body of work (which is focused more or less entirely on making the incredible power of computers more accessible to more people), I have a hard time believing that any such motivation underlies the linked piece. While I think there definitely exists such a motivation in other criticisms of the learn-to-code meme, I don't think it has much to do with Victor's critiques.

Yeah, I was mostly referring to the negativity towards code.org and coding as basic literacy in general, not this author specifically. But that's good to know at least in this case he's not one of those people.

> But, if this is conveyed by the article/graphic, it sure is subtle. I think it would have been a better article if he just explained his complaint (if it is as you say), rather than making a mockery of celebrity quotes with big sarcastic quotes next to pictures of their faces.

Yeah – it's entirely possible that I'm putting my own words about the learn-to-code movement into someone else's mouth unwarranted. I think the linked piece is more of a frustration-fueled rant than a fully-thought-out criticism, and that the author is trying to quickly capture the spirit of a half-formed argument that he hasn't yet fully explored.

At any rate, it resonated with me, although it took me a few reads to get the gist of what he was trying to say.

Here's the gist if what he was saying https://gist.github.com/8394393. Sorry, I had to ;).

Going a little tangential.

> He seems to think that school shouldn't be primarily about training people to be "useful" to employers or the government in the short term. I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

I entirely agree; it's something I've been trying to point out for a few years now.

Something people don't recognize about, say, feminist theory on agency and objectification is that it's a subject that applies everywhere. In this case, it's the objectification of people in general as tools for businesses and governments, rather than as individuals with their own particular needs and desires with intrinsic worth. We're uninterested in discussing what a student wants to learn and instead prefer discussing a paternalistic notion of what a student ought to be required to learn.

For some reason, we've lost the vocabulary for discussing things outside of an economic context. It's probably because bringing up questions of morality is scary: between the polarizing force of political religion and the lack of education in forming one's own moral and ethical system, moral claims find little traction unless they're merely repeating something with wide support.

I'm all for making Computer Science education more accessible, but this code.org initiative and its "coding is easy!" and "everyone should learn to code!" and "you only need basic addition and subtraction" BS is really insulting to people who've actually put in the difficult effort and long hours of study and practice it takes to become a professional: http://norvig.com/21-days.html

All Zuckerberg, Gates and the other Valley backers of code.org want is more code monkeys who are just competent enough to glue together stuff they don't fully understand and couldn't implement if asked to, so they can drive down the wages of actual, competent programmers. It's the same reason they support immigration reform.

And why the push to flood the market with "coders," when health care, not software, is bankrupting us as a country? Why isn't there a "everyone should learn medicine" initiative? Isn't your health important to you? Obviously because it would be illegal, and US doctors (the highest paid in the world) would never allow it.

>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Dropbox CEO Drew Houston doled out awards on Thursday night to online applications built by young immigrants during a 25-hour marathon coding session at LinkedIn’s headquarters.
The “hackathon” event sponsored by Zuckerberg’s political advocacy group, FWD.us, brought together a group of 20 young tech-savvy immigrants who came to the United States illegally with their families as children and are not citizens.
Coders of the winning apps received prizes such as Microsoft Surface tablets, Cisco Webcams, Facebook apparel and free storage space from Dropbox.

The aim of FWD.us's hackathon is to pressure the House to break its logjam on immigration legislation by highlighting the technical talents of young immigrants who are living in the country illegally -- often called “Dreamers” in relation to the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act — like the coders participating in the event.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/191176-z...

> I'm all for making Computer Science education more accessible, but this code.org initiative and its "coding is easy!" and "everyone should learn to code!" and "you only need basic addition and subtraction" BS is really insulting to people who've actually put in the difficult effort and long hours of study and practice it takes to become a professional: http://norvig.com/21-days.html

Several of my friends work in IT, and pull in decent salaries. I don't think any one of them has been writing code on a continual basis for ten years. In the UK the MCITP course costs about £1500 - £2000, takes about a year to complete and you can land a decent job with it. The main reason I don't have an MCITP is because I can't afford one, I need to get a job to pull in the necessary funds. I can't get a job because I'm overqualified for a lot of them, or I can't afford the courses if I'm underqualified.

If I ask a question about computing, I often get the response: "Visit this website". If someone asks me a question about computing and I can sort of answer it, I will try and explain it to the best of my ability.

It was only around two years ago I was able to get my own computer. I had been trying to get one for around 5 - 6 years, but couldn't due to lack of funds. Meanwhile someone at the job centre says I should stick to what I am capable of. Said someone believes I am barely capable of even filling out an agreement form, so it is completed for me without my permission. I noticed around six or seven spelling and grammatical errors.

Oh, did I mention that on the rare occasion I do manage to get a full time minimum wage job, it is often accompanied with abusive behaviour. By abusive behaviour I mean being shouted and sworn at (phrases include "fuck off", "you fucking idiot", "cunting", "that kid is fucking thick as two short planks", "stay out of my way or I'll fucking throw it at ya", "you trying to do my fucking job?").

I'm sorry, but I don't see what is particularly insulting about "code.org", I didn't notice swearing or abusive/threatening comments on the site. Perhaps my standards are different to yours.

EDIT: messed up the formatting, again.

If you were aware of Bret's previous work, then you would know that he's got nothing against code.org specifically. He's addressing the culture. He's been talking about Mindstorms and programming literacy since before code.org existed. He totally agrees that people should learn programming, and he has no problem with the word "code." He simply disagrees with the motivation—he thinks (and I agree) that people should learn to program because it helps people think, and helps people learn. Not because programming is profitable.

Also, you completely misunderstood the bit about will.i.am. It was a compliment, not an insult. He was saying that will.i.am has a better opinion on programming, as a musician, than all of these other people who should know better (public policy makers and programmers).

I'm interested: what is it about the wrd 'code' that you think people don't like? Do you think such people are generally coming from an elitist view, or just a pedantic one?

> he thinks (and I agree) that people should learn to program because it helps people think, and helps people learn.

Read it again. He specifically called that out as a terrible idea.

Bret believes in Seymour Papert's vision, where coding is not an end in itself, but a vessel for experiential learning about important ideas in mathematics and other fields.

I think you misunderstood me. When I said "helps people think/learn", I meant by USING programming, not by being TREATED with programming. This is the same distinction Bret is trying to make.

I think the problem here is that programmers don't agree with the way this is being marketed. All the talk about how programming will make you rich and it's so easy is a bit superficial. Personally, I understand that this is the most effective way to carry out this campaign and get the policy makers and the laymen to buy in.

In many countries, a professional is considered to be a banker, lawyer or a doctor. Programmers are not given the same respect.

Now with the importance of technology in our day-to-day lives, there is a chance for programmers and those working in IT to be considered as professionals, as equals.

Instead we have people within the industry running around describing themselves as 'geeks' and 'nerds' and 'hackers'. Meanwhile those outside the industry claim that programming is easy, anyone can do it, all you need is a computer and a couple of lessons.

You would not find people saying the same thing about doctors or lawyers, and you would not find doctors or lawyers denigrating themselves.

This is really starting to sound like the dotcom era where anybody who wrote a line of HTML could say that they were a software developer.

It's worse.

Apparently you can take a random homeless person, give them a few lessons, and hey presto you have an app maker.

Well, 99% of apps don't do anything useful - they're either for killing time or an invention of marketing department hell-bent on selling you more of the stuff you don't need. So I'm not surprised that it's not difficult to build something that can compete in this market.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make but I've always felt like a professional, maybe because I mostly worked at tech companies. And anyone going around calling themselves "geek", "nerd", or "hacker", probably aren't one.

See post by wes-exp above.

Being a doctor and practicing laws have much higher barriers to entry for purely practical reasons, not because of some goal of these professionals form "denigrating" themselves. They are not as nearly as accessible as programming and carry much higher consequences for incompetence (which also clearly still happens quite often regardless).

Stop being such an elitist. Just like any profession there are worlds of difference between the different levels of skill and competence, that doesn't mean you're denigrating yourself by trying to make it more accessible for kids.

It is entirely reasonable to demand some professionalism and set some standards in fields besides medicine and law. Already, many engineering disciplines are regulated and require a license to practice.

As computers become more and more woven into society, the consequences of having incompetent programmers are becoming more and more severe. Just one example currently in the news is the Target breach. Millions of people are affected by that. Or healthcare.gov, anyone?

Now just imagine when cars drive themselves, computers control your money (bitcoin), and "apps" supervise your grandparents' health.

The idea that all of this critical technical infrastructure is built out by Pepsi-fueled kids who reject education, experience, and scientific rigor in favor of whatever circle-jerk beliefs they invent amongst themselves as they "hack" on PHP, is frankly appalling. Such teams are the go-to choice for clueless corporate PHBs who only see dollars per hour as the hiring criteria.

But hey, that's the status quo, and I doubt you'll ever see companies move to be in favor of setting some professional standards, because the business priority is cheaper workers.

Great post.

I wrote a huge mess that, on second thought, I put away just because I don't know Bret Victor and shouldn't shove words into his mouth.

But to me, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm sorry, but this is a field were our median income is 50% more than the median income of the rest of the country. It's also a field that you don't need to go to college to join, can educate yourself on how to join it by using sites like Code.org and other online resources, and has a ton of demand, meaning you won't be out of work like your Dad has been, several times in the last few years.

To anyone going through school right now, then coming home and seeing the news their parents are watching, or look at the front page of the newspaper their parents are reading, or listen to an adult at their soccer game or the mall or church, all of this sounds like a way out of it, a way to give yourself something better than that.

Why in the hell is it so wrong to want a better life than what your parents had?

Because learning to code just so you can code doesn't in any way mean you are more likely to be employed in the future, especially if there is a successful push for people to learn to code just for the sake of having more programming literacy. That's not meant as a "let's keep it elite" comment, but as a "you're teaching the wrong thing" comment. As much as it may seem teaching people to code is teaching them to fish, when it's pushed this way it's closer to giving them a fish. Teaching them to reason and using programming as a method to teach them interesting concepts is teaching them to fish.

The problem is, we don't know what a "successful push" is. For all we know, "success" is half the world becoming programmers. We don't know what our upper limit is on this yet, as we've never been close to hitting it.

And as to teaching reasoning: I'll be honest, the best teachers in the world have trouble teaching this to anyone, and someone is wanting a website to do it?

Here's how I see this: programmers and coders are thoroughly ambiguous terms that mean different things to different people. If you think they equate to engineer, then it sounds like a good thing. If you think they equate to mechanic, then maybe not so much. I'm not sure half the world becoming mechanics necessarily has much benefit. Half the world as engineers, maybe so.

My take on the post is that Bret is viewing code.org, or at least the page he criticizes, as trying to make mechanics, when they should be trying to make engineers. Seen in that light, the quotes do take on sort of a different tone.

I think I would disagree on this point. Programmers and mechanics both share a similar ability: the knowledge to make machines amplify our work output. The more folks with these force multiplier skills, the higher the productivity.

Now, I agree that in principle, Engineers design and build those type of systems. However, I think as morr people are educated in those domains (programming or mechanical aptitudes), you will begin to find more self-taught engineers with the skills to bring ideas to life.

I think you're right and wrong: Programmers can be similar to mechanics, but that can alternatively be similar to engineers. It's all semantics, but the people taking part in the whole "learn to code" thing are most likely going to be the mechanics of programming: they can, if given oversight and clear instructions, build lots of things.

On the other side, there are those who are going to be doing the oversight and giving the clear instructions, who can build something from vague requirements with minimal fuss. There are also lots of people in between, but everything is easier when you put it in absolute terms.

It's the same crowd that wants Linux server administration to be obtuse (they want to preserve their power).

>Aww isn't that cute! A musician/artist having an intellectual idea that isn't completely terrible

I think it's less to do with him being a musician/artist than with him being will.i.am, notorious "My Humps" backup singer. If it had been Thom Yorke or Getty Lee or someone then I think they'd probably have been (reasonably or not) treated with a little more respect.

Thom's AMA would suggest otherwise.

I love Radiohead, but... come on.

What's an AMA? Did he speak about coding and its role in society?

No, I meant the respect part. Thom is known for his cryptic ambiguity and often surreal sentence formation, so it's doubtful his opinion would be held in higher regard than anyone else's.

I personally think that the whole "learn to code" meme is a little silly, but I also think that everyone should be exposed to programming at least once. I think that things like code.org are pretty cool, but the tone most of those projects use is a little off putting to me. They all just sound like "you must learn to code or you're a dinosaur". I don't think that's true, but I also don't think people should be as averse to programming as they are. Or computers for that matter.

What's more important in my mind is gleaning a little bit about how computers work. Nothing overly complicated like how a processor or memory work, but that every program is basically just a set of logic routines. The easiest way to do that is probably by teaching a little programming (or logical thinking).

> Quite frankly I'm shocked and confused by some of the negativity I've seen expressed (including those from the HN community) towards code.org, and the idea of programming as a basic literacy in general.

I couldn't agree more, I thought code.org was really cool, educational and entertaining.

I take the view that the less money or resources you have, the more education you require. I currently have £0.90 in my bank account, so I need all the knowledge and skills I can get my hands on.

> To me, this comes off as a desperate attempt to defame this movement because it threatens to demote the status of basic technology roles from "elite magic" to "basic literacy" -- and to some people, apparently that's not an amazing social good, but a terrifying prospect of power loss. Am I way off base here in perceiving this?

To be less verbose, RTFM. RTFM seems to be applicable only when some noob asks a question; when a noob makes a statement that is considered incorrect, you get loads of experts correcting said noob. A lot of the time the original noob statement was misunderstood because the experts misread the statement. I have even come across this on HN.

I started coding at the grand old age of 31 and have no background in CS, so I tend to be treated like a noob, even though I can write a quine in C. A few months ago I was chatting with a friend of mine who works in software development about linked lists, the first sentence I uttered went straight over his head.

There's failure in logic that comes from thinking that code.org's public-facing copy is the same as their policy. Has anyone bothered to read the policy? Does it say the same "coding = make smarter" thing?

Though I guess it isn't necessarily stupid to attack this kind of normalization, but I certainly don't think people will be worse off if they learn the basics of CS and a programming language. At the very least it gives them another tool with which they can solve problems. I guess the danger comes from going so "EVERYONE MUST LEARN CODE HOW TO DO" crazy that it comes at the expense of other education endeavors, instead of an enrichment on top of what already exists.

I think it's highly likely that Bret is completely unaware of how much time will.i.am spends at MIT with Prof. Patrick Winston, and how deeply he cares about technology. In fact, I would bet that will.i.am spends more time in dialogue with people at CSAIL then Bret does.

http://sliceofmit.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/friend2.jpg

Considering Bret Victor lives on the west coast and CSAIL is on the east coast...this isn't too hard to believe. Its not like even most CS PL academics are spending time in dialogue with people from CSAIL.

Actually you are the one who is bashing him. He just merely pointed out that the claim learning to program does not necessarily make you smarter. He is not ridiculing, discrediting or otherwise attacking anything. He might even agree with you. Your claim that this is an attempt to defame this movement is illogical. Everyone has their own opinion learn to accept it, whether you agree with him or not.

I read the will.i.am bit differently, in that of all the quotes out there, his is the only one that is not unreasonable and focuses on the student, in comparison to the assorted political and business folks who are saying "learn to code because we want to use you". In my mind, Gates' is somewhat decent too, but a bit optimistic (per Papert above).

Ad hominem? Really, where?

"Aww isn't that cute! A musician/artist having an intellectual idea that isn't completely terrible -- like a quaint little animal trying to imitate us true intellectuals up here in our high tower of superiority." I exaggerate, but this is basically the elitist mentality I perceive behind the actual quote.

Put down those quote marks until you've learned how to use them properly. We've seen the damage that can do in pg's recent and unfortunate tarring with the 'sexist' brush.

> "Put down those quote marks until you've learned how to use them properly."

Speaking of elitist mentality...

You're wrong to imply that quote marks should never be used this way. You knew that the quote-marked text was just a rhetorical paraphrasing to make a point, and so would any reasonable person. The context makes it completely obvious that it's not an actual quotation.

I'm either being whooshed real hard or you're serious.