[B-Con]

This is a terrible post. He wildly exaggerates Jeff's statements and completely misses the point of it, which was not in any way "no one should learn to program", but rather "don't learn specialized skill sets you don't need". Jeff's point focused on whether programming was the best path to solving a problem for most people, and whether they would actually gain anything from it. His main argument was that programming was just a tool for problem solving, and it didn't solve problems that most people would need to. Rather than do a half-baked job of writing some code, people should take a different, more effective route.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's what he said. And this post completely misses the point and makes Jeff's post out to be something it was clearly not meant to be.

[slurgfest]

"Please don't learn to code" is not a useful or kind thing to say. If he did not mean to say that, then he shouldn't have said it.

Technically most people can get by without literacy, general education, birth control or hand washing. But it's just offensively elitist to say that "most people" don't need things which enrich life and improve opportunities significantly, in aggregate.

How do you know who should be permitted to learn to program (or apply the calculus, or read)? Who are you to say what is a "more effective route"?

Nobody has said anything about doing a half-baked job. Nobody was born an expert, not even you. It's ridiculous to aim elitist bully talk like "half-baked job" at beginners when writing shit code is an unavoidable developmental stage every programmer goes through.

While we are discussing half-baked jobs, let's talk about a status quo where huge numbers of people are doing piles of mind numbing, annoying labor (and making mistakes) just because programming has not been applied. In many cases the funding and justification are not there to improve the process, in no small part because of a traditional culture which tends to programming as effete play or impossible wizardry or both. Do you really mean to suggest that there is NO value in automating or improving processes (or constructing things for yourself) unless you are working full time as a 'professional' developer? The technology is getting easier and easier for people without deep computer science background, so you are on the wrong side of history.

Programming is an incredibly valuable development of this century. It's as much part of the modern human heritage as banking or oral contraceptives. It should be applied in MANY more areas than it is applied.

This macho, elitist attitude is one of the biggest things which keeps a ton of women out of programming and related fields. Treating programming as some kind of venue for manhood comparison, and excluding people who do it for the love and the pursuit of knowledge, is detrimental to the art. It's a bad and unproductive attitude and it should stop yesterday.

[lollancf37]

What do you mean by useful ? Seriously what is really useful in all that "Please code / Please don't code" story ? In itself nothing, it's all a matter of opinion. That doesn't make it less interesting.

So putting the sentence "Please don't learn to code" out of context is just not fair and misleading. He wrote this post like he wrote everything else he does, with his style. You have the right not to like it but please do not state your opinion as fact. How does the post is more useful ?

The idea that everyone should learn to program doesn't disturb me at the least but it's just a waste of time. Comparing programing langage with english, french, russian or whatever is just a joke. The day the first words of a baby will be the binary representation of "Mommy" I'll rethink about it.

In truth those who want to get involved in programming for whatever reason (as a hobby, professionally, by curiousity ...) are those who should learn to program. So let's drop the hype, pleadge and let's keep those good websites which help to get started. I find knowing how to program really useful, empowering, fun and challenging but not everyone has to feel the same way and not every programmer feels like I do. That is what Jeff Attwood tells in this post, while humouring himself with the movement. So please learn to code, if you want to but you'll still be cool if you don't.

[rsanchez1]

I guess Atwood felt that even he needed linkbait and chose that title for that post.

[zedshaw]

The title says "Please don't learn to code". Holy crap, how can so many smart people be so incredibly bad at reading comprehension.

[laughinghan]

Yes, it does. Jeff's article then proceeds to present a very reasonable argument to consider for why you might not want to code, specifically, there are many useful skills in the world and maybe there's one that would serve you better than coding. Your article completely ignores Jeff's article and presents what amounts to an ad hominem attack on Jeff, claiming he's trying to make beginners feel like losers.

Do you honestly believe so many people on here are so bad at reading comprehension that they can't parse the phrase "Please don't learn to code"? I think you're smarter than that. I think we both know that's a straw man. What actually happened was that many people read Jeff's post and realized that the title "Please don't learn to code" was not a summary of his article, it was a title, presenting the highlight of his article, which is that there are some people in some situations in which he'd tell them, "don't learn to code, learn this other thing that will be more useful to you".

[SomeCallMeTim]

>Jeff's article then proceeds to present a very reasonable argument to consider for why you might not want to code, specifically, there are many useful skills in the world and maybe there's one that would serve you better than coding.

Programming is a super-power, even if you only know a little bit. Knowing how to program gives you abilities to create unequaled in the history of the world. I think that the more people who know how to program, the better, even if they "suck" by comparison to a rock star programmer (or alternately a fat guy who knows C++ [1]).

Maybe 95% of people will never be lead programmer on a commercial product, but almost everyone ends up, e.g., searching Google -- and not being afraid of complex search results can mean the difference between digging through six pages of garbage and getting relevant results right away because you weren't afraid to use the minus operator or other more "advanced" search features.

And probably most people in the workplace have to deal with an Excel spreadsheet from time to time -- being willing to dig into creating more complex formulas because they aren't afraid of lists of functions with parameters would be an obvious side effect of knowing a bit of code.

Regardless, Zed is saying that no one should be telling you that you SHOULDN'T learn to program, period. And I agree.

[1] http://betabeat.com/2012/05/04/pro-tip-from-silicon-valley-s...

[neckbeard]

I endorse the subheading on the linked article, if not the entire thing.

[scottbruin]

To be fair, titles should give some idea of what's in an essay or post. If you use a linkbait headline is it that unreasonable to address the more ridiculous point made by the headline?

[dbecker]

Maybe it's fair to criticize the headline.

But it's silly to criticize people's reading comprehension on the basis that they read the article rather than just the headline.

[B-Con]

That is an interesting question, because so many people claim to have read his post yet have no idea what he actually said. Please re-read it.

The post title was an exaggeration, like almost all of his blog post titles are. If you actually read the content of the post, you realize that he clearly wasn't actually saying.

[zedshaw]

I did read it, and he's wrong. That's why I wrote mine.

[laughinghan]

You did read it, and he's wrong, and that's why you wrote an article that did not respond to his (supposedly wrong) arguments at all, and instead presented an ad hominem attack saying he "[gets] off on making beginners feel like they're worthless for attempting something"?

[Smudge]

Not all insults are ad hominem. For this to be ad hominem, he would have to be saying that the reason Attwood was wrong was because he "gets off on making beginners feel like they're worthless..."

Here's a quick illustration:

Ad Hominem: Jeff Attwood gets off on being an ass. Therefore he is wrong.

Not Ad Hominem: Jeff Attwood gets off on being an ass. Incidentally, he is also wrong.

[xanados]

Technically you may be right, if one is in a debate club perhaps. In a real world debate the close position of two elements, especially when one is composed of emotional content, draws a strong implied link between the two points even if they are separate. It's not a compelling defense to say that everyone should be an expert at logical debate and should know to ignore the insults one heaps on one's opponents.

[efuquen]

"Never listen to people who try to make beginners feel like losers."

I didn't see anywhere in Jeff's post where he was saying he wanted to make beginners look like losers. What he is saying is that it isn't necessary for everyone to learn how to code, that a lot of people seem to have a passing interest in it but aren't really serious about it. His example is the fact that Mike Bloomberg is using it as a cheap political stunt, that his time as Mayor would be better spent accomplishing other things. Now, that's somewhat a matter of opinion, maybe Mike Bloomberg really is serious about wanting to learn how to code, but somehow I doubt it. This is a far cry from Jeff wanting to make people feel like losers.

"He's telling other people's kids to not learn to code. He's telling adults who want to improve their lives, or just learn something new. He's telling people from other professions that no, programming won't help them. Why? Why would Jeff tell people to quit and just let the professionals do this? Because of resentment."

That's a complete assumption, in no way backed by anything Jeff said. I didn't see any "resentment" in that post, but you can read into anything you want and make any wild assumptions you want, as long as it makes your post more sensational.

He's not saying that your's or anyone's kids shouldn't learn how to code, he's saying that he doesn't see it as a basic skill we should be teaching children, along with reading, writing, and math. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I get where he is coming from and I'm not going to grossly exaggerated Jeff's position just to make my point.

So, yah, maybe Jeff is wrong, but you're post certainly didn't address what he was actually saying.

[rsanchez1]

Well what's wrong with people having a passing interest in it learning it?

His example seems to be more him having a bone to pick with Mayor Bloomberg. Maybe, having a mayor that extols the virtue of learning something will help improve student absenteeism. Who knows?

[bryze]

I think we need no more a concise declaration of your bias than this.

[mathetic]

When you say it like that it sounds it is bad to be biased in this particular situation.

First of all it sounds much better than "I read it, he is correct. This is why I wrote mine." considering that he is refuting the idea presented.

Being biased is simply being opinionated and luckily Zed Shaw's opinion is that everyone should/can learn code. This is why he has free books, which actually teach some programming to everyone.

[efuquen]

The thing being argued here isn't whether Jeff or Zed is right, the thing being argued is that Zed Shaw grossly misinterpreted what Jeff was saying, which he did.

[brazzy]

That's funny, given that your entire article betrays a spectacular lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Hint: other people's articles, just like yours, consist of more than a title.

[dbecker]

The title was meant as an attention grabber, but the text does not suggest that NO ONE should learn to code. The text only disputes that EVERYONE should learn to code.

[gregors]

back up 200 years and replace coding with reading...

[sklipo]

back up 200 years and replace plumbing with reading...

Your argument isn't evidence for anything at all. There's a big difference between reading and coding: reading is a very useful method of communication. Everyone should be literate just like everyone should be able to speak. Coding, on the other hand, is much more along the lines of plumbing than language.

[gaelian]

There was a book written by Douglas Rushkoff called Program or be programmed[1] wherein he asserts quite a compelling argument for why learning at least a basic understanding of programming and how a computer works actually is (or very soon will be) just as important as being able to read.

The basic crux of the issue for me is this: you can control a society via the flow of information through that society. Both reading and more recently, programming are activities intimately connected to the flow of information through modern society. Along with an understanding of programming comes a greater understanding of computers to computer networks to privacy issues and all manner of things that more people should be thinking about more conciously, regardless of whether they wish to program as a career.

While no doubt the flow of material through plumbing pipes is also quite important for societies in general, I don't think an understanding of plumbing affords quite the same insights and protections against being potentially manipulated by the powers that be as one might acquire through the pursuit of reading and programming.

1. http://programorbeprogrammed.com/

[sklipo]

Of course people will need to be informed on security and privacy on computers, but that doesn't require an understanding of coding. I know how to safely drive a car, for example, but I have no idea how it works under the hood (and frankly, I don't have the time or energy to learn this).

Coding really is a specialized job. For sure, some people would be better off learning it because it can be useful, but everyday people don't need to know how to code just like they don't need to know how a car works. All they need to know is how to drive safely, or use the computer securely.

And really, I don't get this whole "learn to code, learn how your computer works" idea. When I first learned ruby, I didn't magically gain an understanding of filesystems and networks and all those other things. My dad, on the other hand, who doesn't know how to code, in fact he didn't even know what a kernel was, can fix your computer up in a jiffy (hardware and software both, particularly windows). He's in fact still better than me at this, because he knows all the intimate little details of the windows UI and what each thing does, what each error probably means.

So the point is, you don't need to learn how to code to know how to use a computer well, and learning javascript won't really help you with that either. If all you want is to know how to protect your computer from the powers that be, don't learn to code; just listen to what the experts have to say on the subject.

[mjwalshe]

Good point and one of the things the powers that be hated about Gutenberg and those who wanted to print Bibles in the vernacular - was they did not want the hoi poli learning to read and getting ideas above their station.

More recently similar arguments were made against educating freed slaves in the USA

[dbecker]

Life was hard 200 years ago. Taking the time to learn to read would have been a major hardship for some people, and many (most of whom could not afford books) may not have used the skill much.

I think it was reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago.

[rsanchez1]

England had a literacy rate of 62% around 1800, so no, it was not reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago.

The American Revolution was spread through pamphlets passed out at the local tavern. Newspapers played a major role in educating the people about the Revolution and passing around the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution, so no, it was not reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago.

By the way, if Gutenberg's Printing Revolution made the written word so cheap that pamphlets could be handed out to as many people as possible, I don't think there would have been many who could not afford books 200 years ago. If there were many who didn't use the reading skill much, then there wouldn't have been all the hoopla over the Stamp Act the British imposed on the American colonies. You sorta need to know how to read to make any use of stamps 200 years ago.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates

[dbecker]

A 62% literacy rate doesn't mean it was unreasonable to have a literacy rate less than 100%.

[readme]

Apparently you. Have you thought about reading the post, rather than just the title? The same exact statement could be applied to the title of your post "Please don't become anything, especially not a programmer"

Nice article by the way, and thanks for your work.

[rwallace]

And the title of the response says "Please don't become anything." I think it's better to focus on the content, not the title.

[mitsche]

While I didn’t like Jeff Atwood’s post, I didn’t take the title literally. To me it seems obvious that it can also be read as "Please don't >learn to code<", meaning that we (people who understand and write code) might be wrong in assuming that it’s a skill on par with algebra or cooking in importance and are therefore in no position to lure people into learning programming as if it were the one big roadblock separating them from enlightenment. Or something like that.

Natural languages are ambiguous. One of the reasons why they’re more fun than programming languages.

[jscheel]

Yes, because you have never written a post with an incendiary title.

[Raphael_Amiard]

> "don't learn specialized skill sets you don't need"

Even that would be stupid. You probably don't know if you need it before you know it.

Also it could be argued that everybody "needs" to know how to code, in that pretty much everyone spends a good portion of their lives in front of a computer, and knowing how to automate its behavior would make life easier for a lot of people.

The funny thing is, pretty much everyone needs plumbing skills too. That doesn't mean everyone is gonna learn them, or should become a master plumber. But knowing a thing or two about it certainly can't hurt.

Zed doesn't exaggerate Jeff's statements. The original statements are already exaggerated and caricatural, portraying reality as a binary thing : either you can program, or you can't. Things are not that simple

[sac2171]

This is the first post that I would down vote if I could. Learning might not be binary, but the industrial revolution was built on the division of labor, and all Jeff was saying is that not everyone needs to learn how to code. If computer scientists/programmers/coders do their job properly, people with absolutely no understanding of the workings of their computers will be able to drive effectively, just as people can drive without understanding how a car works. Some level of encapsulation is a good thing, and while learning how certain things work is generally a good idea, it comes with an opportunity cost, which is especially high when we are talking about the mayor of NYC. Should Obama be learning how to code? Absolutely not. I agree with most of Zed's argument, however he does not respond to Jeff at all.