3 ms·

Programming is the most obvious one because it the one thing thats going to allow the individual to interface with civics, economics, excercise, biology, histor

Programming is the most obvious one because it the one thing thats going to allow the individual to interface with civics, economics, excercise, biology, history, math, science and english in a structure manner. That doesn't mean you are not going to play tennis. It doesn't mean you only have to do code. But to understand just the basics is many many many times more useful for the individual than you seem to be suggesting. You literally can't find a more versatile tool for that. So the whole idea that people shouldn't learn to code is rooted in either some deeply misguided understanding of how humans grow intellectually or som deeply juvenile idea that if you aren't ready to put in the work to be a real coder you shouldn't get started to begin with. It doesn't matter if it's not for everyone, people will find that out when they try it out. Some of them will become professional developers many wont, but most will develop an understanding and insight into the very thing that is disrupting their lives in an increasing maner and perhaps use it to further develop other fields.

threatofrain 11y ago
You are speaking only for value of something, when I was talking about weighing value when burdened by constraints. I gave a list of valuable interests, but I noted the problem of opportunity cost. So the question is not "should we have dance" in schools, but, "What do we cut? What do we downsize? How about exercise or history?". Alternative, "instead of programming, how about statistics and personal finance?" These are far more interesting questions, because these questions acknowledge constraints and weighing. If we didn't have to exercise constrained thinking, we mind as well say, "let's have it all". Saying that programming is at the intersection of so many subjects is unrealistic, and the same could be said about math, physics, or statistics, and I'd say that statistics and personal finance are far better candidates if you had to somehow squeeze one more thing into school at the cost of something else. The reason why software exists at some intersection with another discipline is almost always statistics. Statistics, then, is the most flexible gateway to numerous disciplines, and software is the tangential detail to statistics. The scientist exercises experimental modelling, collects the data, and inputs it into an excel sheet, and imports it into the university software suite. And this is the right level of involvement between a scientist and software. The scientist is rightly not interested in the details of software. Nor the physicist, or the student of history, literature, or the exercise enthusiast or the musician. These people are all very justified in throwing money at the problem for a prepared solution, because software is the detail.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  That's because I don't buy the premise of the burdened constraints. Especially not when it comes to programming. You are trying to build up a false contradiction. Different choices brings people forward in different ways but it can never be a bad thing to learn something even if you don't end up becoming a professional. The cost you are talking about is simply not there with programming. Your ability to access almost any field greatly increases with the ability to program, especially in a world where the collective information accumulated to almost double every second year. You can use programming to explore all those other fields. Whether music, personal finance and so on. Saying that it's unrealistic that programming is at the interection of many subjects makes absolutely no sense. Programming embeds statistics not the other way around. It's the one thing that can be used to simulate almost all other phenomena expect the experience itself. And so the cost would be NOT to understand at least the fundamentals of programming. If you disagree with this then that's your right, but to claim that someone shouldn't be learning programming is just as absurd as claiming no one should learn music or football just because there is a cost. That "cost" is perspective and perspective is always valuable.

threatofrain 11y ago

You are speaking only for value of something, when I was talking about weighing value when burdened by constraints. I gave a list of valuable interests, but I noted the problem of opportunity cost. So the question is not "should we have dance" in schools, but, "What do we cut? What do we downsize? How about exercise or history?". Alternative, "instead of programming, how about statistics and personal finance?" These are far more interesting questions, because these questions acknowledge constraints and weighing. If we didn't have to exercise constrained thinking, we mind as well say, "let's have it all". Saying that programming is at the intersection of so many subjects is unrealistic, and the same could be said about math, physics, or statistics, and I'd say that statistics and personal finance are far better candidates if you had to somehow squeeze one more thing into school at the cost of something else. The reason why software exists at some intersection with another discipline is almost always statistics. Statistics, then, is the most flexible gateway to numerous disciplines, and software is the tangential detail to statistics. The scientist exercises experimental modelling, collects the data, and inputs it into an excel sheet, and imports it into the university software suite. And this is the right level of involvement between a scientist and software. The scientist is rightly not interested in the details of software. Nor the physicist, or the student of history, literature, or the exercise enthusiast or the musician. These people are all very justified in throwing money at the problem for a prepared solution, because software is the detail.

ThomPete 11y ago
That's because I don't buy the premise of the burdened constraints. Especially not when it comes to programming. You are trying to build up a false contradiction. Different choices brings people forward in different ways but it can never be a bad thing to learn something even if you don't end up becoming a professional. The cost you are talking about is simply not there with programming. Your ability to access almost any field greatly increases with the ability to program, especially in a world where the collective information accumulated to almost double every second year. You can use programming to explore all those other fields. Whether music, personal finance and so on. Saying that it's unrealistic that programming is at the interection of many subjects makes absolutely no sense. Programming embeds statistics not the other way around. It's the one thing that can be used to simulate almost all other phenomena expect the experience itself. And so the cost would be NOT to understand at least the fundamentals of programming. If you disagree with this then that's your right, but to claim that someone shouldn't be learning programming is just as absurd as claiming no one should learn music or football just because there is a cost. That "cost" is perspective and perspective is always valuable.