Code.org

GavinFlud

Sparks wrote: »

The more I think about it, the less I think that's right.
I'm probably bringing my own biases to it, I suppose, but the reason I do what I do is that I like to build stuff and see stuff work. When I was a kid, what got me excited about this job was things like these:It was never about people or the offices they worked in. It was always about cool stuff I could build. If it wasn't "stuff", I had no interest then, and I still have no interest now. Honestly, I look at the google offices and I just don't see the point - if I want to play foosball, I'll go do it with friends outside the office.

Frankly, having my own office instead of being stuck in a giant cubicle farm would be far more appealing than everything being brightly painted like a creche... but I digress.

My point is that it's cringeworthy to watch people like the <beeep>s in the video in the OP trying to sell coding as a hobby. Screw that noise. Show the cool stuff, don't even bother selling it. End result, you get the people who're going to like their jobs rather than the people who hate them and either quit or become a reason for others to quit.

I may not be articulating this particularly well

I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't think we should be encouraging every Joe Soap on the streets to become a programmer, simply because there's more jobs in the field than people to fill them. A very large proportion of people just don't have the ability or passion to become a write (good) code in a professional environment.

I do however, think that programming improves your logical thinking and problem-solving abilities. So if schools decided to start teaching it for a couple of years then it could only help. The kids who enjoy coding may end up trying to take it up professionally, while the kids who don't can do it for a couple of hours each week in school, improve their problem-solving abilities and then leave school with that bedrock of knowledge.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

<offtopic>Coincidentally...</offtopic>

You know what? Screw off-topic. That's heart-of-the-topic. I'm pretty jaded at times and today's been as much fun as most, but that link, that thing right there? That's the ****. That's the absolute mother****ing **** right there, that's why I got into computer engineering in the first place, and even today that hits all my buttons at once. I see a post on twitter, I click on a link, and I get a direct video feed of the launch of a pirvately owned commercial rocket resupplying the international space station, including a feed from a webcam on the side of the rocket from launch to "vehicle is orbital" eight minutes later. That's living in the damn future and we build that.

Bill Gates as inspiration to do computer engineering as compared to that? Please. Not even in the running.

ChRoMe

Sparks wrote: »

You know what? Screw off-topic. That's heart-of-the-topic. I'm pretty jaded at times and today's been as much fun as most, but that link, that thing right there? That's the ****. That's the absolute mother****ing **** right there, that's why I got into computer engineering in the first place, and even today that hits all my buttons at once. I see a post on twitter, I click on a link, and I get a direct video feed of the launch of a pirvately owned commercial rocket resupplying the international space station, including a feed from a webcam on the side of the rocket from launch to "vehicle is orbital" eight minutes later. That's living in the damn future and we build that.

Bill Gates as inspiration to do computer engineering as compared to that? Please. Not even in the running.

You probably would have been better off studying physics then

Sparks

ChRoMe wrote: »

You probably would have been better off studying physics then

/bitchslap.

Engineers, not scientists, build these things.
But what would a computer scientist know?



:pac:

/legs it

Sparks

Also...



*hehe*

lemon_remon

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/05/please-dont-learn-to-code.html

Jeff Atwood hit the nail on the head with this even before the ridiculous video came out.

srsly78

I recently turned down a job writing gesture/touch interface software for the ESA. Would have been my dream job when younger I suppose, but now am a jaded mercenary. The money in science sucks unfortunately

764dak

GavinFlud wrote: »

It's definitely a campaign I am fully behind. I don't buy into the ridiculous argument that everyone, no matter what profession they are in, should know how to code. What I do buy into is finding a way to teach kids about logic and problem-solving. If the best (or most interesting) way to do that is through programming then it should be pushed into the public eye. It doesn't necessarily mean they will still be coding later in life, but they will have built that bedrock of knowledge for problem-solving which can be applied in many different environments.

Don't they do that in math class? Don't they have reasoning classes for kids?

lemon_remon

764dak wrote: »

Don't they do that in math class? Don't they have reasoning classes for kids?

Not really, especially with the new "project maths" ****e in Ireland.

Learning to "code" (i.e the syntax an imperative language) is trivially easy anyway and is not going to be of much use to anyone. The difficulty in the real world comes with software engineering practices, which can't be thought in a class room, and computer science theory, which would be too difficult to teach in schools and is only useful to a subset of people who work for companies like Google anyway. What's the point of teaching kids to "code" when they can't do basic maths which is much more fundamental to the world than "coding"?

GavinFlud

lemon_remon wrote: »

Not really, especially with the new "project maths" ****e in Ireland.

Learning to "code" (i.e the syntax an imperative language) is trivially easy anyway and is not going to be of much use to anyone. The difficulty in the real world comes with software engineering practices, which can't be thought in a class room, and computer science theory, which would be too difficult to teach in schools and is only useful to a subset of people who work for companies like Google anyway. What's the point of teaching kids to "code" when they can't do basic maths which is much more fundamental to the world than "coding"?

I think the only benefit teaching programming would have over teaching maths (real maths, not the new project maths rubbish) is that it might be slightly more interesting for kids to solve their problems on a PC and get visual feedback for their solutions. It could also encourage some to go beyond that and test out alternative or more efficient solutions.

That being said, have you ever tried to get a room full of kids (some of whom have no idea how to create a file or directory) to concentrate on the task at hand when they have a computer in front of them? Some actually find it more interesting trying out different desktop wallpapers than writing their own programs.

Earthhorse

Meh, if you wanna look up to Bill Gates then look up to Bill Gates. The man will leave a legacy which stretches far beyond the world of computer programmaing I think it's fair to say. And if you wanna look up to Will.I.Am then look up to Will.I.Am, it doesn't bother me.

I don't know whether everyone needs to learn to code per se but outside of people who will earn their living from it there are two uses for it in my opinion.

The first is that most people will have to deal with programmers at some point in their life. It helps to have an understanding of what they're actually doing because right now I suspect to most people it may as well be magic. People don't need to be trained in medicine or engine building to visit the doctor or garage but at least they understand, on some broad level, what those people are doing; they don't have a clue what programmers are doing at all (a lot don't anyway) and so they don't really communicate effectively with us as a result (communication's a two way street of course).

The second is that programming is the best tool I know of to show people how limited their ability to anticipate and hold every consideration in their mind is. Their really is no better illustration of how poor our problem solving skills are, of how weak our ability to articulate everything clearly than trying to write a useful computer programme. It's quite a humbling experience for anyone who thinks they're smart.

As an aside, I think the way programming is taught is due a vast overhaul too. There are so many great tools, languages and frameworks out there but finding good materials that really get you up to speed in them is far harder than it should be. We can do a much better job of imparting what we already know to newcomers and I hope we start to soon.

lemon_remon

Earthhorse wrote: »

People don't need to be trained in medicine or engine building to visit the doctor or garage but at least they understand, on some broad level, what those people are doing; they don't have a clue what programmers are doing at all (a lot don't anyway) and so they don't really communicate effectively with us as a result (communication's a two way street of course).

To use your example, people don't really understand what a doctor does, they think they do but they really don't. People's understanding of what a doctor does is "she treats me somehow to make me better", that is it. If someone has more understanding then they have researched the topic themselves. People's understanding of computer programming is similar, "she interacts with the computer somehow to make it do stuff". What more understanding does someone need? The reason (some) doctors can communicate with people is because they have had training in such matters, not because people understand what they're doing. If it's a problem then similar training should be given to people who are software developers so that they can interact with users on a non-technical level.

Related to your point there is no reason why *everyone* should learn to program, in the present or future. If someone has to have a knowledge of programming to interact with your system then you have failed on a very fundamental level to build your system properly (unless you're building a system for programmers). You wouldn't expect someone who uses a bridge on their daily commute to know about structural engineering would you? You might expect, however, that the structural engineer who engineered the bridge be able to communicate with a person who uses the bridge on a non-technical level.

Earthhorse

lemon_remon wrote: »

To use your example, people don't really understand what a doctor does, they think they do but they really don't. People's understanding of what a doctor does is "she treats me somehow to make me better", that is it. If someone has more understanding then they have researched the topic themselves. People's understanding of computer programming is similar, "she interacts with the computer somehow to make it do stuff". What more understanding does someone need? The reason (some) doctors can communicate with people is because they have had training in such matters, not because people understand what they're doing. If it's a problem then similar training should be given to people who are software developers so that they can interact with users on a non-technical level.

When people go to the doctor then don't just say "I'm sick". They tell the story of their sickness; "I wasn't feeling well last night so I went to bed early but five minutes later I had to go the toilet and throw up. I was running a temperature all night and didn't sleep much. Today, I haven't had any appetite and I feel a bit weak". People rarely go into this level of detail with programmers, and don't even understand that they need to, which is why it's so hard to get them to sit down and write specs. Instead you get "The system's down" when the system is up but they can't log in and you get "I can't log in" when the system is down. As a result conversations are less productive than they could be. People don't enter this level of precision with programmers because they don't feel they need to (and arguably because they are less invested in the system than their own health or vehicle).

Related to your point there is no reason why *everyone* should learn to program, in the present or future. If someone has to have a knowledge of programming to interact with your system then you have failed on a very fundamental level to build your system properly (unless you're building a system for programmers). You wouldn't expect someone who uses a bridge on their daily commute to know about structural engineering would you? You might expect, however, that the structural engineer who engineered the bridge be able to communicate with a person who uses the bridge on a non-technical level.

I don't expect that of a structural engineer building bridges, no, because they are nowhere near as ubiquitous in the workplace as programmers are; a situation which may become even more the case in the future. Nobody has to have a knowledge of programming to interact with any system I've built, nor with most systems I've ever seen built (I can't even think of anything other than an IDE where that would be the case) but I never said that or anything remotely approaching it. In order to have more productive conversations with programmers regarding the system, whether it be logging defects, asking for instruction on how to carry out a task they haven't done before or requesting new features I think it would be helpful if they had done programming so that they understood the importance of precision in the language they use. I don't think it's a must, just something that would help.

lemon_remon

Earthhorse wrote: »

When people go to the doctor then don't just say "I'm sick". They tell the story of their sickness; "I wasn't feeling well last night so I went to bed early but five minutes later I had to go the toilet and throw up. I was running a temperature all night and didn't sleep much. Today, I haven't had any appetite and I feel a bit weak". People rarely go into this level of detail with programmers, and don't even understand that they need to, which is why it's so hard to get them to sit down and write specs. Instead you get "The system's down" when the system is up but they can't log in and you get "I can't log in" when the system is down. As a result conversations are less productive than they could be. People don't enter this level of precision with programmers because they don't feel they need to (and arguably because they are less invested in the system than their own health or vehicle).

Someone's only going to do that if the doctor prompts them with questions. A developer should be able to procedurally ask the user questions in order to to diagnose the problem. The user shouldn't be expected to know what they have to say in order for the diagnoses. It stems from the arrogance of many technically savvy people that, because they know it, everyone should know it.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't expect that of a structural engineer building bridges, no, because they are nowhere near as ubiquitous in the workplace as programmers are; a situation which may become even more the case in the future. Nobody has to have a knowledge of programming to interact with any system I've built, nor with most systems I've ever seen built (I can't even think of anything other than an IDE where that would be the case) but I never said that or anything remotely approaching it. In order to have more productive conversations with programmers regarding the system, whether it be logging defects, asking for instruction on how to carry out a task they haven't done before or requesting new features I think it would be helpful if they had done programming so that they understood the importance of precision in the language they use. I don't think it's a must, just something that would help.

If someone has to have a knowledge of programming to communicate defects of the system then they have to have a knowledge of programming to use the system.

Edit: To expand a bit further if someone comes into a doctor's office and says "I feel sick", the doctor will ask follow up questions to try find out what is wrong with them. They know what questions to ask. If a user says to a developer "I can't login" then the developer should be able to ask follow up questions in order to get more information. The information they need to communicate should come from the developer and not the other way around.

If people learn basic coding, as described in the OP video, what you'll end up with is a load people who *think* they know what is wrong with the system. Similar to people who prescribe themselves medicine because they *think* they know what is wrong with them. You'll end up with one of those bug reports you see in Open Source projects where a person who *thinks* they understand they system gives a bunch of nonsensical information which doesn't benefit anyone and is just more text to read for the debugger. If you've ever looked at a Open Source project's bug tracker, there's plenty of these annoying users, who are just as bad as the "I can't login" types.

Earthhorse

lemon_remon wrote: »

Someone's only going to do that if the doctor prompts them with questions.

I very much doubt that; you hold obviously important information back from the doctor when describing your symptoms?

A developer should be able to procedurally ask the user questions in order to to diagnose the problem. The user shouldn't be expected to know what they have to say in order for the diagnoses. It stems from the arrogance of many technically savvy people that, because they know it, everyone should know it.

Developers are able to do as you describe; at least I am. It's not arrogant to expect that in an information age people familiarise themselves with the everyday terms of the software they use; and the point is that they are very much everyday. Those who don't will find themselves very much left behind.

If someone has to have a knowledge of programming to communicate defects of the system then they have to have a knowledge of programming to use the system.

Do they? Why do you think that? I certainly don't. I think it would be helpful if they did because they then would better understand the need for precision in describing defects.

Edit: To expand a bit further if someone comes into a doctor's office and says "I feel sick", the doctor will ask follow up questions to try find out what is wrong with them. They know what questions to ask. If a user says to a developer "I can't login" then the developer should be able to ask follow up questions in order to get more information. The information they need to communicate should come from the developer and not the other way around.

I disagree. Communication is a two way process as I've outlined above. If people don't provide precise and complete information they can expect a delay in diagnosis as the developer is forced to ask questions to get to the root of the problem. Given that there are fewer developers than users in most cases the bottleneck is better alleviated by users having some technical knowledge than having developers play twenty questions (and most developers are very good at this if you ask me, I don't know any who aren't because we have to be).

If people learn basic coding, as described in the OP video, what you'll end up with is a load people who *think* they know what is wrong with the system. Similar to people who prescribe themselves medicine because they *think* they know what is wrong with them. You'll end up with one of those bug reports you see in Open Source projects where a person who *thinks* they understand they system gives a bunch of nonsensical information which doesn't benefit anyone and is just more text to read for the debugger. If you've ever looked at a Open Source project's bug tracker, there's plenty of these annoying users, who are just as bad as the "I can't login" types.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Maybe. I think the two situations aren't analogous as the type of people logging those bugs in Open Source are precisely not the type of people the video is aiming at but I accept you would probably get a certain amount of that from them too.

lemon_remon

Earthhorse wrote: »

I very much doubt that; you hold obviously important information back from the doctor when describing your symptoms?

Older people and children definitely do but they're able to get diagnoses.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Developers are able to do as you describe; at least I am. It's not arrogant to expect that in an information age people familiarise themselves with the everyday terms of the software they use; and the point is that they are very much everyday. Those who don't will find themselves very much left behind.

This has absolutely nothing to do with learning coding. People should learn about, for example, the difference between The Internet and The Web. This requires absolutely no coding.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Do they? Why do you think that? I certainly don't. I think it would be helpful if they did because they then would better understand the need for precision in describing defects.

If your system doesn't log information for the developer, easily accessible by user to communicate to the developer, then that is a defect in your system not the user.

Earthhorse wrote: »

I disagree. Communication is a two way process as I've outlined above. If people don't provide precise and complete information they can expect a delay in diagnosis as the developer is forced to ask questions to get to the root of the problem. Given that there are fewer developers than users in most cases the bottleneck is better alleviated by users having some technical knowledge than having developers play twenty questions (and most developers are very good at this if you ask me, I don't know any who aren't because we have to be)..

Again, a little technical knowledge doesn't mean people have to learn coding. That is what we are discussing.

Earthhorse

lemon_remon wrote: »

Older people and children definitely do but they're able to get diagnoses.

Good lord. So the majority of people don't then? In short, people who can communicate relevant information will communicate it once they understand that it is relevant. They will better understand what is relevant and what's not when something, such as programming, is demystified for them.

This has absolutely nothing to do with learning coding. People should learn about, for example, the difference between The Internet and The Web. This requires absolutely no coding.

It may not require it but exposing them to coding may be a better way of teaching them the importance of it rather than them assuming the burden should be on the developer.

If your system doesn't log information for the developer, easily accessible by user to communicate to the developer, then that is a defect in your system not the user.

And if it does but the user doesn't share that information with you? Happened to me today; the error message in the system we designed reported an actual error (that the transaction log was full) and in the two systems we inherited from third parties you got no error message in one case and an object null reference in another. But guess which one the user reported to me?

You're making an awful lot of wrong assumptions about my point.

Again, a little technical knowledge doesn't mean people have to learn coding. That is what we are discussing.

My original point is that if there is any benefit to teaching everyone coding it would be the demystification of programming such that users would know that whilst the message "Transaction log for database is full" means next to nothing to them it is useful information for me to have in order to help them. You may argue that they don't need to learn coding to do this and I agree but coding may be the best way to teach them this given that so few seem to have picked up in the normal course of their work.

Sparks

Earthhorse wrote: »

you hold obviously important information back from the doctor when describing your symptoms?

:pac:

lemon_remon

Earthhorse wrote: »

And if it does but the user doesn't share that information with you? Happened to me today; the error message in the system we designed reported an actual error (that the transaction log was full) and in the two systems we inherited from third parties you got no error message in one case and an object null reference in another. But guess which one the user reported to me?

You're making an awful lot of wrong assumptions about my point.

Ok, fair enough, but this more to do with people being idiots than having any knowledge of coding.

Earthhorse wrote: »

My original point is that if there is any benefit to teaching everyone coding it would be the demystification of programming such that users would know that whilst the message "Transaction log for database is full" means next to nothing to them it is useful information for me to have in order to help them. You may argue that they don't need to learn coding to do this and I agree but coding may be the best way to teach them this given that so few seem to have picked up in the normal course of their work.

There are college students who have been studying programming for 4 years who don't understand what useful information is to an actual developer. Just look at the comments in their projects for evidence of this.

int x = 0; // Set the integer x to zero.

And **** like this. This is not useful to someone reading your code i.e a developer but despite learning programming they still don't realize this.

I think future generation will be better with the type of problem you describe anyway. Kids these days are more tech savvy without having a knowledge of coding. For example, a kid will probably be able to tell you that just because they cannot load boards.ie, it doesn't mean boards.ie isn't working and that it might be a problem with their Internet connection. Essentially, teaching kids to code is solving a problem that doesn't exist. A problem that people are having when communicating to less technical people, this will be much less of a problem when everyone has grown up with technology. Teaching someone to code teaches them the syntax of a programming language, nothing more. If kids want to learn how to code then that's fair enough, leave them do it but don't suggest that's it's a necessary life skill as the video does. A basic knowledge of technology in general is a necessary life skill, a knowledge of coding isn't. I have had lecturers in college who have a knowledge of coding but no knowledge of why they can't turn on the projector. I'd go as far to say technology and coding, in the context of what code.org are teaching, are mutually exclusive.

What kids should be focusing on is their problem solving skills, this is much better developed with maths than it is with coding which places unnecessary barriers to developing problem solving (learning syntax, what an int is, what a stackoverflow is etc.) than maths which is much much more pure.

Sparks

Frankly, I think people are over-egging the pudding here anyway.
You want kids to learn programming? Tough. It's like Daddy wanting Junior to follow him into the family business - it might happen, or it might be that Junior is the best the world has ever seen in some other business. (In other words, some kids will go into programming and some won't and there's little good in shoving them).

You need to focus on making it easy for them to play and learn in the areas they show interest in and let them learn at their own pace. Honestly, you know what I think is the best single thing you could do to get kids to learn this kind of thing is? Buy the right kind of toys and comics for them.

SalteeDog

Even though it is supposedly Global the real problem code.org is trying to solve is to encourage enough American kids to go into s/w development as a career or the US economy is facing a resource crisis in the coming years which will in turn significantly hinder economic growth (and indeed the ability to produce returns for venture capitalists such as the founders).

..not saying its a bad thing though. I'm all for kids getting exposed to the sheer fun of programming and the sense of achievement it can deliver but lets be real - the ability to write code is hardly an essential life skill.

lemon_remon

SalteeDog wrote: »

Even though it is supposedly Global the real problem code.org is trying to solve is to encourage enough American kids to go into s/w development as a career or the US economy is facing a resource crisis in the coming years which will in turn significantly hinder economic growth (and indeed the ability to produce returns for venture capitalists such as the founders).

..not saying its a bad thing though. I'm all for kids getting exposed to the sheer fun of programming and the sense of achievement it can deliver but lets be real - the ability to write code is hardly an essential life skill.

True, I think it's important that people who want to learn have a place to learn, something like Coder Dojo is perfect. Forcing programming down people's throats is another thing. We know that, in Ireland, having Irish as a mandatory subject doesn't make anyone understand it, appreciate it or enjoy it. People who want to learn to program will learn to program, it has always been that way.

764dak

lemon_remon wrote: »

I have had lecturers in college who have a knowledge of coding but no knowledge of why they can't turn on the projector. I'd go as far to say technology and coding, in the context of what code.org are teaching, are mutually exclusive.

:pac:

croo

Like most homes today my house is full of electrical & electronic devices and I don't know how any of it works. Even though I keep telling myself I must learn more about this electricity stuff I never actually do and miraculously I've managed to survive.

Likewise, sure who needs to code?
If the worst comes to the worst I know this guy in China
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/27/outsourcing_job_common/
The Onion actually ran a skit on this theme a couple of years ago

I wonder did they give some people ideas?

It's funny but a couple of decades ago the thinking (in the US) was that coding was grunt work best done by computers or cheap overseas labour (that's us & India). While the CASE didn't work out we do have far superior tools available to us today that make us much more efficient. Ireland is no longer cheap so we are out of that picture now but as for the cheap labour you'd expect with the cheap & powerful communications available today that that would have been more successful but I guess the language/cultural divide has proved more challanging that expected. Though from what I read the successful outsouring projects work much like those in the Register story where a small, high value, local technical team uses the much larger, & cheaper, outsourced technical resources for the grunt work.

Personally I believe that our late coming to the broadband (and many still cannot avail) has meant Ireland, as a whole, is only recently waking up to the idea of the internet... suddenly there is a 2000-ish feel here - just look at all those "great idea" posts in this forum (and others) for example. It's like suddenly people are opening their eyes to the potential of the web - most of the developed world was going through this in the DOTCOM boom of the late 90s-2000. I'm guessing (without any research ) that this is because it's really only in recent years any decent broadband services have become available. We can thank Eircom for that - not the decent broadband! For the ten year delay!!

I guess added to that is the more recent explosion in phone/tablet apps. Again this make me reminisce - it reminds me of the emergence of the personal computer when a single developer could write an application - one that people wanted.

I guess when the euphoria of these two events recedes we'll be left with the truth of coding again - it's grunt work for the most part. There will always be coders that shine and can compete on pure talent against the low cost countries (like this guy http://blog.jpl-consulting.com/2011/12/why-i-will-never-feel-threatened-by-programmers-in-india/) - but I don't believe they will be an industry!

After saying all that there is no harm in learning to code - If it's done right. If kids (and adults) are simply forced to learn the syntax of some language then I don't see any great advantage. If they are taught to problem solve in a structured manner then that is a skill that will benefit someone no matter what career they eventually follow. Someone mentioned scratch earlier - it's not coding in the traditional sense that we developers might consider coding but it does teach problem solving - I too would recommend it. EToy is very similar, perhaps there is even relationship between the two - I think they are both based on squeak - the open source smalltalk environment.

SalteeDog

There's a lot more to producing successful software than writing code. Advocates of off-shoring to low-cost countries often fail to remember that.

SalteeDog

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

Is coding skill that anyone can learn with enough practice, time, hard work and effort?

Perhaps...but it's a lot more difficult for some. Read this.