3 ms·

I am torn. Did we do this before? Was it necessary before? Did we try to teach everyone how internal combustion engines or transistors work when they came up? T

by danbruc 10y ago

I am torn. Did we do this before? Was it necessary before? Did we try to teach everyone how internal combustion engines or transistors work when they came up? There are of course always a lot of interested hobbyists when something new comes up but it seems the solution was mostly to hide the complexity and have professional car mechanics instead of making everyone an expert in the new technology. May programming be different? Because computers and software are so omnipresent? Maybe. But programming is also definitely pretty hard. Is it worth the time? Can you spent enough time learning to program so that it is actually useful in the end without negatively affecting other subjects? I mean in Germany we learn FizzBuzz-level programming in school (and that is what sent me down the software development route) but I don't think that has a lasting impact on many. When I see what most people are struggling with when using their computers and phones, I would say they don't have to learn to program, they have to learn how those devices, operating systems and protocols work. DHCP or DNS not working? What's up with those drivers? Have you looked into the log file? Is the daemon running? But then again this looks a lot like those kinds of complexities that we used to hide from consumers and have professional mechanics for. We have already come a long way from MS-DOS with everyone using the command line and fiddling with autoexec.bat and config.sys to a Windows 10 tablet trying to bury all the ugly details under a shinny surface.

ousta 10y ago
you don't get it. this is the blue collar job of the next two decades and as for any blue collar job we will need lot of people with the skill to make the job market cheap. get ready for this.
- danbruc 10y ago
  Is there actually evidence that we need more people in IT? The first thing I found was this chart [1] of the GDP split by economic sectors. If things didn't change much over the last five years this doesn't really look like we need everyone in IT. Also the next two decades seems a bit short, it will take about a decade for changes in the education system to show up in the market. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sectors_of_US_Economy_as_Percent_of_GDP_1947-2009.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sectors_of_US_Econom...
maruhan2 10y ago
I think differently. Required subjects are required not because they have tangible use but because it's worth to learn them as common knowledge. Literature, history, etc can all be argued as unimportant for sustaining your life. Programming is ubiquitous, and yet there are many people who cannot even imagine what programming is despite having gone through school. To relate to your engine example, ask anyone who has gone through school to try to describe what the insides of a car is like and they can probably explain their own interpretation (whether it is right or wrong). Ask the same people how they think a computer is run and I bet less than 20% can even attempt their own interpretation. That seems like a common knowledge worth learning.
- danbruc 10y ago
  But spending four lessons to learn how a 1980s computer works in the same way you spend two lessons learning how a 1900s internal combustion engine works is very different from teaching programming. I agree though, that would probably be some time well spent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lordnacho 10y ago
I think it's more a question of showing the kids that programming exists than making programmers. In the same way, most people don't need to know how to structure an essay in their jobs, they don't need a foreign language, and they don't need to know algebra. But it's a window into the richness of life. Show the kids a bunch of stuff, and they will be able to explore further themselves.
- danbruc 10y ago
  I agree with that but I don't think that is what people have in mind when they argue everyone should learn to program. As I mentioned in Germany we have this, for me it was maybe one lesson per week for a year or two. And this was more than two decades ago.
corecoder 10y ago
> Did we try to teach everyone how internal combustion engines or transistors work when they came up? As you note, software influences our lives in a much deeper way than internal combustion engines and transistors, and this will only become more and more true as time passes, so I think this may be useful. I don't expect most students to become programmers; I hope they'll grasp some software concepts, the most important being (IMO) that software isn't magic, and has limitations and costs. People could get away with thinking that internal combustion engines and transistors were magic with far less consequences than thinking that software is magic. Btw, they did teach me how an internal combustion engine and a transistor work, at school—not to a professional level, but enough to understand the basics.
peter303 10y ago
Blame it on US coding promoters. Even Obama has paid lip service to this. Japan then feels like it is falling behind and must copy. Japan is copied tech fad before, like AI and massive parallelism in the 1980s. And they fail at projects which arent feasible or they dont understand.

by danbruc 10y ago

ousta 10y ago

you don't get it. this is the blue collar job of the next two decades and as for any blue collar job we will need lot of people with the skill to make the job market cheap. get ready for this.

danbruc 10y ago
Is there actually evidence that we need more people in IT? The first thing I found was this chart [1] of the GDP split by economic sectors. If things didn't change much over the last five years this doesn't really look like we need everyone in IT. Also the next two decades seems a bit short, it will take about a decade for changes in the education system to show up in the market. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sectors_of_US_Economy_as_Percent_of_GDP_1947-2009.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sectors_of_US_Econom...

maruhan2 10y ago

I think differently. Required subjects are required not because they have tangible use but because it's worth to learn them as common knowledge. Literature, history, etc can all be argued as unimportant for sustaining your life. Programming is ubiquitous, and yet there are many people who cannot even imagine what programming is despite having gone through school. To relate to your engine example, ask anyone who has gone through school to try to describe what the insides of a car is like and they can probably explain their own interpretation (whether it is right or wrong). Ask the same people how they think a computer is run and I bet less than 20% can even attempt their own interpretation. That seems like a common knowledge worth learning.

danbruc 10y ago
But spending four lessons to learn how a 1980s computer works in the same way you spend two lessons learning how a 1900s internal combustion engine works is very different from teaching programming. I agree though, that would probably be some time well spent.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lordnacho 10y ago

I think it's more a question of showing the kids that programming exists than making programmers. In the same way, most people don't need to know how to structure an essay in their jobs, they don't need a foreign language, and they don't need to know algebra. But it's a window into the richness of life. Show the kids a bunch of stuff, and they will be able to explore further themselves.

danbruc 10y ago
I agree with that but I don't think that is what people have in mind when they argue everyone should learn to program. As I mentioned in Germany we have this, for me it was maybe one lesson per week for a year or two. And this was more than two decades ago.

corecoder 10y ago

> Did we try to teach everyone how internal combustion engines or transistors work when they came up? As you note, software influences our lives in a much deeper way than internal combustion engines and transistors, and this will only become more and more true as time passes, so I think this may be useful. I don't expect most students to become programmers; I hope they'll grasp some software concepts, the most important being (IMO) that software isn't magic, and has limitations and costs. People could get away with thinking that internal combustion engines and transistors were magic with far less consequences than thinking that software is magic. Btw, they did teach me how an internal combustion engine and a transistor work, at school—not to a professional level, but enough to understand the basics.

peter303 10y ago

Blame it on US coding promoters. Even Obama has paid lip service to this. Japan then feels like it is falling behind and must copy. Japan is copied tech fad before, like AI and massive parallelism in the 1980s. And they fail at projects which arent feasible or they dont understand.