36 ms·

I think the author was saying something different, with which I agree. There's a POV from which code is the details needed to get something done, and the less,

I think the author was saying something different, with which I agree. There's a POV from which code is the details needed to get something done, and the less, the better. In my life, the less visible the code task has become, the more power I've gained. A couple of examples: When word processors stopped needing to be told stuff like /b at the beginning and end of words I wanted boldfaced, it got better. I found the whole WYSIWYG thing enormously helpful. The portion of time I devoted to typography was released for improving content. LabView made it possible for me to assemble data acquisition and control systems with drag/drop icons and drawing connections instead of coding a PID module and then a gain module and then a Kalman filter function and ... you get the idea. Less code to write, more stuff done. By analogy: Today, I turn a dial to make a fire to cook my dinner. I turn a valve to get water. I drive a car to go places. Yes, I've rubbed sticks together, I've winched a bucket up from a well, and I maintained a horse for mobility when I was a kid. I'm pleased and empowered by no longer needing those skills. In the same way, I look forward to the disappearance of coding as a prerequisite to creation. I'm immensely grateful to the people whose coding is making that happen.

dasil003 10y ago
This is a strawman. Coding has never been a prerequisite to creation. People were creative forever, and then computers came along and created new avenues for creativity. The vast majority of which is done with applications, and applications have improved by leaps and bounds every decade. Only a very tiny portion of creative work requires actual programming, like demo scene programmers. Even video games and Pixar movies have far more artists then programmers. It's true that more and more programmers are required to extend and maintain the software, but the growth of the end-user base has far outpaced the programmers. The majority of programmers are implementing business logic of which they have minimal high-level creative input. The things we can do with computers without code has only increased. Pontificating on how it would be better if we didn't have to write code is like someone who once used a circular saw pondering why can't artisanal wood carving also be done with simple straight-forward, easy-to-use tools instead of difficult-to-use hand tools. I mean its crazy how often we hear this refrain about coding as opposed to other professions. No one asks why can't we have a gadget to perform an appendectomy at home instead of paying a surgeon thousands of dollars, but for some reason people think that coding is somehow unnecessary magic which could be done away with by a bit of clever rethinking. But code is not some rube goldberg device designed to obfuscate and impress; code is a medium, like a blank canvas, or a sheet of typing paper, the only difference is it can control physical things. It is not one concrete thing with a specific purpose which can be optimized like a word processor, or a stove, or a faucet or a car. Less code doesn't mean a simpler world, it just means less of what code can do.
- ridgeguy 10y ago
  I appreciate the thoughtful reply, thank you. But it's not a strawman. That's when you advance an argument that wasn't at issue. I supported the article's thesis, that fewer people will be coding in the future, and provided a couple of anecdata points from my experience. I don't think code is unnecessary magic to be done away with. It's essential magic that becomes invisible when done well, to everyone's benefit. And to clarify, creative work isn't limited to the arts. The creative impulse is common and has multiple outlets. Engineering is every bit as creative as portraiture or sculpture or crafting LOTR on a ginormous graphics processor farm. My observation is that as the need for coding has decreased due in large part to increased computational sophistication, it's gotten easier for a wider range of people to do contributive work. Suppose you have something to say about climate change. If you need to model it, you have several global models you can run, without having to code FEA and planetary atmospheric physics from scratch. Or pick an artistic field - I know a hand weaver who uses commercial software to visualize her designs before she heads off to her hand loom. She'll never code a simple if/then/else statement, but the (invisible to her) code in the app lets her do things she'd never have time or resources to try otherwise. Even in your medical example - I'll guess that fewer than 2% of the surgeons who use a Da Vinci medical robot could do anything useful with the code that runs that system. And if learning to code the robot were a prerequisite to using it, it would be a failed product. I like your thought of a device for home appendectomy. Why not, really? Ultrasound imaging, vital signs sensing, actuators for retractors, scalpels...and lots of invisible code to make it work well. Just the thing for clinics in parts of the world where there is appendicitis but no doctors. Code may not be designed to obfuscate, but it does that to many who would otherwise be able to use computation to do something new and useful. I think the more sophisticated code becomes, the less it will be a critical skill for most people. Which is good. We'll be free to figure out the next important thing and work on making it trivial.

dasil003 10y ago

This is a strawman. Coding has never been a prerequisite to creation. People were creative forever, and then computers came along and created new avenues for creativity. The vast majority of which is done with applications, and applications have improved by leaps and bounds every decade. Only a very tiny portion of creative work requires actual programming, like demo scene programmers. Even video games and Pixar movies have far more artists then programmers. It's true that more and more programmers are required to extend and maintain the software, but the growth of the end-user base has far outpaced the programmers. The majority of programmers are implementing business logic of which they have minimal high-level creative input. The things we can do with computers without code has only increased. Pontificating on how it would be better if we didn't have to write code is like someone who once used a circular saw pondering why can't artisanal wood carving also be done with simple straight-forward, easy-to-use tools instead of difficult-to-use hand tools. I mean its crazy how often we hear this refrain about coding as opposed to other professions. No one asks why can't we have a gadget to perform an appendectomy at home instead of paying a surgeon thousands of dollars, but for some reason people think that coding is somehow unnecessary magic which could be done away with by a bit of clever rethinking. But code is not some rube goldberg device designed to obfuscate and impress; code is a medium, like a blank canvas, or a sheet of typing paper, the only difference is it can control physical things. It is not one concrete thing with a specific purpose which can be optimized like a word processor, or a stove, or a faucet or a car. Less code doesn't mean a simpler world, it just means less of what code can do.

ridgeguy 10y ago
I appreciate the thoughtful reply, thank you. But it's not a strawman. That's when you advance an argument that wasn't at issue. I supported the article's thesis, that fewer people will be coding in the future, and provided a couple of anecdata points from my experience. I don't think code is unnecessary magic to be done away with. It's essential magic that becomes invisible when done well, to everyone's benefit. And to clarify, creative work isn't limited to the arts. The creative impulse is common and has multiple outlets. Engineering is every bit as creative as portraiture or sculpture or crafting LOTR on a ginormous graphics processor farm. My observation is that as the need for coding has decreased due in large part to increased computational sophistication, it's gotten easier for a wider range of people to do contributive work. Suppose you have something to say about climate change. If you need to model it, you have several global models you can run, without having to code FEA and planetary atmospheric physics from scratch. Or pick an artistic field - I know a hand weaver who uses commercial software to visualize her designs before she heads off to her hand loom. She'll never code a simple if/then/else statement, but the (invisible to her) code in the app lets her do things she'd never have time or resources to try otherwise. Even in your medical example - I'll guess that fewer than 2% of the surgeons who use a Da Vinci medical robot could do anything useful with the code that runs that system. And if learning to code the robot were a prerequisite to using it, it would be a failed product. I like your thought of a device for home appendectomy. Why not, really? Ultrasound imaging, vital signs sensing, actuators for retractors, scalpels...and lots of invisible code to make it work well. Just the thing for clinics in parts of the world where there is appendicitis but no doctors. Code may not be designed to obfuscate, but it does that to many who would otherwise be able to use computation to do something new and useful. I think the more sophisticated code becomes, the less it will be a critical skill for most people. Which is good. We'll be free to figure out the next important thing and work on making it trivial.