5 ms·

It's just a rant with very few valid points. First of all the author is confusing the readers by not making it clear the distinction between writing code as a h

by suyash 11y ago

It's just a rant with very few valid points. First of all the author is confusing the readers by not making it clear the distinction between writing code as a hobbyist programmer vs writing code like a Computer Scientist. Computer Science first of all is more science than Economics. Theories in computer science have mathematical proofs behind them, the arguments he is making seem to be based on programming design patterns like Abstraction and so forth which are of course always debatable.

DickingAround 11y ago
Full agree; especially on comp-sci being far harder of a science than economics. The author seems to be making the opposite case, for example based on how there are not labeled 'schools of through'. I would argue these schools of thought are good for structuring debate but don't make economics into a science. Furthermore, it's very easy to dispel the author's idea that 'learning to code' is not a worthwhile goal or even that there's serious risk if the public confuses learning to code with computer science. To give a correlary, if you teach someone to weld no one will confuse them with a master metallurgist and machinist. I think the world will understand the difference between a novice programmer and a master programmer. The risk here is low. And thus the rant is not terribly valuable.
- alosarv 11y ago
  I think that assumption is incorrect. Looking at the multitude of posts on "why can't programmers program"[1] (in the sense of not having solid fundamentals) and the difficulty of finding, let alone having an interview process that is reliable able to identify them, I would say there is a large amount of confusion distinguishing those who can weld and master metallurgists. People can spend a decade or more in the industry as working "programmers" and fail at writing FizzBuzz, let alone understanding basic relational theory or how a their chosen stack works. And then we try to patch it over with more tooling or new languages that are supposed to be less error-prone or somehow magically allow us to build out programming teams out of coders rather than teach them solid CS fundamentals and sound development practices. The problem is that to someone not trained in a craft, even a beginner would appear to be able to perform that craft; only someone with deep(er) understanding of metallurgy would be able to recognize that said welder has no idea of what they're doing and is just following a set scripted actions; what's more harmful is that said beginner is lulled into believing they are actually an expert whereas they're really an Expert Beginner[2]. [1] http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ [2] http://www.daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of-the-expert-beginner http://www.daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of...
grayclhn 11y ago
Generally agree, but "theories ... have mathematical proofs behind them" doesn't distinguish computer science from economics. And I think you'd be surprised at the level of mathematical sophistication of a lot of econ. (This is usually not cited as a selling point in critiques of economics, btw.)
- bachmeier 11y ago
  Yeah, that comment was strange. I had a PhD mathematician in my class in grad school, one that had worked as a math professor for years and was well published, and he said he felt comfortable with the rigor of the courses. There are a lot of math PhD's publishing in econ journals and teaching in econ departments.
  - grayclhn 11y ago
    In my anecdotal experience, econ PhD students are a lot more likely to take graduate math classes than cs PhD students. The PhD probability sequence was more or less a standard part of the econometrics course work in my program. Admittedly, I don't know that many cs PhDs, so maybe I don't have a complete picture. I think a lot of these views come from the undergrad classes where, yeah, econ math requirements are pretty unimpressive. But, of course, the recommendation for students who plan to get a PhD amounts to "be a math major," which again isn't my understanding of cs...
barrkel 11y ago
Economics is mostly microeconomics. The stuff you read in the newspapers is not what most economists do. And of course most people who aren't economists, or don't know economists, think that economics is little more than astrology.
- bachmeier 11y ago
  > Economics is mostly microeconomics. Please elaborate. Macroeconomics and econometrics are very much a part of economics.
  - barrkel 11y ago
    I didn't say they weren't part of the discipline. What I meant is that most professional economists are not making prognostications about the economy; they are typically analysing costs and benefits at several degrees of indirection, developing models from data, and more generally optimizing choices - economics is the study of choice. What I'm particularly arguing against is the idea that the average economist is some kind of marketplace weather forecaster and that consequently, owing to accuracy little better than chance, there's nothing worthwhile in the discipline.
    - rz2k 11y ago
      Maybe I am misinterpreting your comment, but forecasting isn't the primary function of macroeconomists. Most of what will determine the future hasn't happened yet, or hasn't yet been measured. And yet, public policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy choices all have enormous effects, and those choices are ideally informed by people who have actually studied the economy. To put it in familiar terms, there is a difference between the climate and the weather, and we are able to influence the economic environment for good or bad in the same way that we could affect the climate by changing the atmosphere or changing the distance to the sun.
- halostatue 11y ago
  Inasmuch as any branch of economics theory depends on homo economicus, it is IMO little more than astrology. There’s a lot of really interesting economics research out there (at least the stuff that the Freakonomics podcast is surfacing to my notice is interesting), but it’s on edges that are, by and large, rejecting homo economicus and is trying to reflect what people really do. (There’s a lot of behavioural economics research that has been reported on for the last several episodes, which is fascinating.)

by suyash 11y ago

DickingAround 11y ago

Full agree; especially on comp-sci being far harder of a science than economics. The author seems to be making the opposite case, for example based on how there are not labeled 'schools of through'. I would argue these schools of thought are good for structuring debate but don't make economics into a science. Furthermore, it's very easy to dispel the author's idea that 'learning to code' is not a worthwhile goal or even that there's serious risk if the public confuses learning to code with computer science. To give a correlary, if you teach someone to weld no one will confuse them with a master metallurgist and machinist. I think the world will understand the difference between a novice programmer and a master programmer. The risk here is low. And thus the rant is not terribly valuable.

alosarv 11y ago
I think that assumption is incorrect. Looking at the multitude of posts on "why can't programmers program"[1] (in the sense of not having solid fundamentals) and the difficulty of finding, let alone having an interview process that is reliable able to identify them, I would say there is a large amount of confusion distinguishing those who can weld and master metallurgists. People can spend a decade or more in the industry as working "programmers" and fail at writing FizzBuzz, let alone understanding basic relational theory or how a their chosen stack works. And then we try to patch it over with more tooling or new languages that are supposed to be less error-prone or somehow magically allow us to build out programming teams out of coders rather than teach them solid CS fundamentals and sound development practices. The problem is that to someone not trained in a craft, even a beginner would appear to be able to perform that craft; only someone with deep(er) understanding of metallurgy would be able to recognize that said welder has no idea of what they're doing and is just following a set scripted actions; what's more harmful is that said beginner is lulled into believing they are actually an expert whereas they're really an Expert Beginner[2]. [1] http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ [2] http://www.daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of-the-expert-beginner http://www.daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of...

grayclhn 11y ago

Generally agree, but "theories ... have mathematical proofs behind them" doesn't distinguish computer science from economics. And I think you'd be surprised at the level of mathematical sophistication of a lot of econ. (This is usually not cited as a selling point in critiques of economics, btw.)

bachmeier 11y ago
Yeah, that comment was strange. I had a PhD mathematician in my class in grad school, one that had worked as a math professor for years and was well published, and he said he felt comfortable with the rigor of the courses. There are a lot of math PhD's publishing in econ journals and teaching in econ departments.
- grayclhn 11y ago
  In my anecdotal experience, econ PhD students are a lot more likely to take graduate math classes than cs PhD students. The PhD probability sequence was more or less a standard part of the econometrics course work in my program. Admittedly, I don't know that many cs PhDs, so maybe I don't have a complete picture. I think a lot of these views come from the undergrad classes where, yeah, econ math requirements are pretty unimpressive. But, of course, the recommendation for students who plan to get a PhD amounts to "be a math major," which again isn't my understanding of cs...

barrkel 11y ago

Economics is mostly microeconomics. The stuff you read in the newspapers is not what most economists do. And of course most people who aren't economists, or don't know economists, think that economics is little more than astrology.

bachmeier 11y ago
> Economics is mostly microeconomics. Please elaborate. Macroeconomics and econometrics are very much a part of economics.
- barrkel 11y ago
  I didn't say they weren't part of the discipline. What I meant is that most professional economists are not making prognostications about the economy; they are typically analysing costs and benefits at several degrees of indirection, developing models from data, and more generally optimizing choices - economics is the study of choice. What I'm particularly arguing against is the idea that the average economist is some kind of marketplace weather forecaster and that consequently, owing to accuracy little better than chance, there's nothing worthwhile in the discipline.
  - rz2k 11y ago
    Maybe I am misinterpreting your comment, but forecasting isn't the primary function of macroeconomists. Most of what will determine the future hasn't happened yet, or hasn't yet been measured. And yet, public policy, fiscal policy, and monetary policy choices all have enormous effects, and those choices are ideally informed by people who have actually studied the economy. To put it in familiar terms, there is a difference between the climate and the weather, and we are able to influence the economic environment for good or bad in the same way that we could affect the climate by changing the atmosphere or changing the distance to the sun.
halostatue 11y ago
Inasmuch as any branch of economics theory depends on homo economicus, it is IMO little more than astrology. There’s a lot of really interesting economics research out there (at least the stuff that the Freakonomics podcast is surfacing to my notice is interesting), but it’s on edges that are, by and large, rejecting homo economicus and is trying to reflect what people really do. (There’s a lot of behavioural economics research that has been reported on for the last several episodes, which is fascinating.)