This article is not only wrong, it's the opposite of the truth. Putting to one side the blatant false dichotomizing, let's look at the central argument: > Insi

This article is not only wrong, it's the opposite of the truth. Putting to one side the blatant false dichotomizing, let's look at the central argument: > Insisting on the glamour and fun of coding is the wrong way to acquaint kids with computer science. I'm not convinced that: A) This is happening very much, B) or would work even if it was happening, C) or would be particular bad if it happened and somehow also worked. Messaging in the vein of the author's examples is innocuous. Nobody is going to see Tim Cook say "coding is fun" in a news clip and then conclude that a four year computer science degree is easy, or that their friend who works in software is an idiot and gets paid simply to have fun. With regards to more intentional examples, let's be realistic: how many kids are going to see a presentation in class entitled "coding is fun" and respond differently than "this blows, what's for lunch?" And what if they did? They might learn something about it on wikipedia; they might try writing a script; they might choose a major they would otherwise have overlooked. Which is, frankly, the best thing we could hope for. The problems facing engineering in 2019 aren't the result of too many people being interested in computer science, they are the result of too few. > In just a few years, understanding programming will be an indispensable part of active citizenship This is clearly untrue, unless you interpret it more broadly as "having a general understanding of technology and the role it plays in the economy." And along with statistics and logic, it already is, and we have failed utterly to proselytize it. Do you think that our society would be improved by a push to make statistics more boring to students?