[zedshaw]

I'm not refuting his statement that programming is or is not a life skill. My opinion on the matter is demonstrated in my work. I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying.

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.

[prayag]

>I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should.

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.

[nboshart]

But it IS a life skill. It's not comparable to reading or writing maybe, but it is comparable to financial planning. People don't learn to write budgets properly so they go broke. People don't know how computers work, even just the basics, but operate these machines every day as part of their work and their home life. Knowing how to use a command line to look for viruses, how to monitor your home network, or even what a bit of code looks like - enormously useful skills that make you a more savvy, thoughtful, and protected citizen.

[laughinghan]

See, that is a thoughtful, reasonable argument. No ad hominem attack, suggesting someone "[gets] off on making beginners feel like they're worthless for attempting something".

Consider writing a blog post that actually responds to Jeff Atwood's post, rather than a straw man constructed from his title?

[prayag]

I would agree that it is more of life skill than say learning about European history. Or calculus.

But so is basic electronics and basic electrical engineering. Where do we draw the line in the modern world?

[Tsagadai]

Wherever you want. It's your life, learn what you want to. You don't have to wait for some internet celebrity to tell you what you should or shouldn't be learning.

[drbawb]

Herein lies the rub, though. We have to choose what we want to teach our kids. That's how the current system is established anyways.

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.

[rsanchez1]

Don't draw a line. You shouldn't limit yourself like that.

[zedshaw]

The title says "Please don't learn to code". The rest of the post is just more of that in different words.

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.

[dkersten]

I actually agree with your article, but you can't seriously take Jeff Atwoods title seriously unless you also mean us to take your title seriously - so are you now telling us that we shouldn't become anything? Especially not programmers? I mean, it says it right there.

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.

[laughinghan]

The title is not a summary. THE TITLE IS NOT A SUMMARY.

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.

[prayag]

If you are insinuating that I didn't read your article. I did. That is why I made the comment.

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.

[erso]

I stopped reading your article once I realized you gave the title precedence over the content.

[bengillies]

You realise that you're not supposed to reply at all to your own thread if you're trolling right?

[stiff]

He didn't state that people should not become programmers, he stated that people who do not intend to become programmers wouldn't benefit much more from a "coding" course than from a plumbing course, and could instead for example use some knowledge of how to find or build a solutions to their problems in an easy way without actually programming it. I do not necessarily agree with him everywhere, and I do greatly respect your work on "Learn X the hard way", but in my opinion you completely misrepresented what he has written and trivialize a point that actually is interesting and worth thinking about.

[B-Con]

> Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying.

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?