3 ms·

While it is true that there are lot of resources for people getting started and getting into programming, and that "Beginners walk a very fertile ground," I thi

While it is true that there are lot of resources for people getting started and getting into programming, and that "Beginners walk a very fertile ground," I think that misses the point. Something about our industry and trade has been exclusionary. Perhaps unintentionally. The "anyone can program" movement seems to me to be in large about about addressing this - you don't have to be a particular gender or ethnicity to write code (either just for fun, or for a living). It is true, as the article points out, that programming is hard. But we teach lots of things in school that are hard that no one will do professionally. Calculus is hard too, but more people take AP Calculus in the US (based on https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/2020/Student-Score-Distributions-2020.pdf https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/re..., around 400k) than take AP Computer Science (based on same, around 188k). I don't think Calculus is that much more valuable, nor is Computer Science that much harder, to justify such a large gap. The point is, even among STEM subject, there's a taboo around computer science and programming. But it is equally true that it's not helpful to tell people that programming is a walk in the park, and the article does a good job explaining that. Perhaps better than saying "programming is hard," or "programming is easy," we say "programming is worth it" and leave it there.

the_only_law 6y ago
> Calculus is hard too, but more people take AP Calculus in the US (based on https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/re https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/re..., around 400k) than take AP Computer Science (based on same, around 188k). FWIW my school didn’t offer AP Computer science till the year I graduated, where AP Calc had been a thing for much longer.
dkarl 6y ago
> The point is, even among STEM subject, there's a taboo around computer science and programming. I really thought this was no longer true, but it rings true to me as someone who was in school in the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, being into computers was a social liability. It was way worse than being into math and science. Math and science weren't optional, and they were important for college admissions, so being good at them didn't prove you were a weirdo who actually liked that stuff. You were just taking advantage of your intelligence to succeed at something that everybody else wished they were better at, too. (Assuming, of course, you didn't cop to thinking calculus was SUPER COOL.) Being good with computers, on the other hand, demonstrated a kind of stupidity that outweighed the intelligence it required. To understand how it could be socially negative to do something that everybody assumed required a lot of intelligence, you could, from a narrow point of view, compare being good with computers to going to jail for beating up a police officer. Being strong and tough was a desirable attribute, just like intelligence was, but that particular way of proving it was way worse than not being strong at all. It showed a different kind of weakness that cemented your identity as a loser, somebody that a "good" person was better off not knowing. Even if it made you seem mysterious and fearful, at the same time, it made you "less than" and socially irrelevant. I thought this was changing in the 21st century. When I look at people under 35 in the industry, I don't see signs of having grown up under that social stigma. I might be missing it because of other generational differences, though. I'm curious what others think. > Perhaps better than saying "programming is hard," or "programming is easy," we say "programming is worth it" and leave it there. Maybe "programming is necessary" or "programming is ubiquitous?" Maybe the best way to remove the stigma is to convince kids that people who struggle with programming will wish they were better at it, rather than being able to dodge it entirely. Let's turn it into something that everybody wishes they were a little bit better at, so they don't automatically look down on people who succeed with it.
quintdamage 6y ago
I took both AP Calculus, AP Computer Science A/CSP. CSA has you work with miniscule Java problems while CSP had you do things like define "big data" and what IETF stands for. Despite getting a 4/5 on the exams, I don't feel like they resembled anything like my introductory classes at a state university, and don't really seem to apply to either the academic wing of computer science nor software engineering. I'm sure part of that is likely due to teaching, as I preferred my highschool math teachers to the technology/computing teachers, but the curriculum seems misfocused at best.

the_only_law 6y ago

> Calculus is hard too, but more people take AP Calculus in the US (based on https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/re https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/re..., around 400k) than take AP Computer Science (based on same, around 188k). FWIW my school didn’t offer AP Computer science till the year I graduated, where AP Calc had been a thing for much longer.

dkarl 6y ago

> The point is, even among STEM subject, there's a taboo around computer science and programming. I really thought this was no longer true, but it rings true to me as someone who was in school in the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, being into computers was a social liability. It was way worse than being into math and science. Math and science weren't optional, and they were important for college admissions, so being good at them didn't prove you were a weirdo who actually liked that stuff. You were just taking advantage of your intelligence to succeed at something that everybody else wished they were better at, too. (Assuming, of course, you didn't cop to thinking calculus was SUPER COOL.) Being good with computers, on the other hand, demonstrated a kind of stupidity that outweighed the intelligence it required. To understand how it could be socially negative to do something that everybody assumed required a lot of intelligence, you could, from a narrow point of view, compare being good with computers to going to jail for beating up a police officer. Being strong and tough was a desirable attribute, just like intelligence was, but that particular way of proving it was way worse than not being strong at all. It showed a different kind of weakness that cemented your identity as a loser, somebody that a "good" person was better off not knowing. Even if it made you seem mysterious and fearful, at the same time, it made you "less than" and socially irrelevant. I thought this was changing in the 21st century. When I look at people under 35 in the industry, I don't see signs of having grown up under that social stigma. I might be missing it because of other generational differences, though. I'm curious what others think. > Perhaps better than saying "programming is hard," or "programming is easy," we say "programming is worth it" and leave it there. Maybe "programming is necessary" or "programming is ubiquitous?" Maybe the best way to remove the stigma is to convince kids that people who struggle with programming will wish they were better at it, rather than being able to dodge it entirely. Let's turn it into something that everybody wishes they were a little bit better at, so they don't automatically look down on people who succeed with it.

quintdamage 6y ago

I took both AP Calculus, AP Computer Science A/CSP. CSA has you work with miniscule Java problems while CSP had you do things like define "big data" and what IETF stands for. Despite getting a 4/5 on the exams, I don't feel like they resembled anything like my introductory classes at a state university, and don't really seem to apply to either the academic wing of computer science nor software engineering. I'm sure part of that is likely due to teaching, as I preferred my highschool math teachers to the technology/computing teachers, but the curriculum seems misfocused at best.