4 ms·
Computers are not like cars. Cars have a well-defined purpose, for which they have been ruthlessly optimised. Computers are more like writing. Writing is a mean
by agentultra 15y ago
Computers are not like cars. Cars have a well-defined purpose, for which they have been ruthlessly optimised. Computers are more like writing. Writing is a means for expressing and conveying ideas (and here's the key bit: any ideas); computers are machines for executing instructions (and here's the key bit: any instructions). Saying that only a few people need to code today is like saying that only a few people needed to read and write in the 1500s.
A poor analogy and geeky wishful thinking, IMO.
Computer programming is not like writing in any way. Writing is a facility of language and a way for us to leave behind our thoughts in the past and disseminate them to others. A computer program on the other hand describes a process on a machine. They are two completely different patterns of thought. Language is literature, poetry, ideas, information, and a tool for immortalizing ourselves. Programming has been around for a mere half-century and already many of the programs that brought us here are forgotten and interesting only to a select few. While I like to read programs myself, I hardly find it an essential skill (and some days I'm afraid to admit, I wish I didn't understand it at all).
I'm afraid a "mass-algorate," society would not be nearly as useful as a fully literate society. It's a skill that is not as generally useful to the human condition. Not yet anyway. We're still working on the numeracy part which has been building for a much longer time (and yet I'm afraid we might have missed the opportunity to reach mass-numeracy). Until such a time that a computer is as ubiquitous as paper and pen or a stick and some sand -- I think algorithms and programming will be skills relegated to a privileged, nerdy class of people.
edit: spelling
- delinka 15y agoAnalogies are useful because they are analogous, not because they perfectly mirror the concept beig analogized. The argument seems to he whether we are at that point of technological ubiquity where being generally algorate is a benefit to society. However, I believe I agree with you that technology is not at that point. (literacy, numeracy, and "algorithmacy"[?] are equally beneficial to society - technology is not the reason for this though) If technology becomes ubiquitous enough around the world (perhaps a touch device for 80% of the world?), many someones will be making the devices more accessible to the less algorate and you're back to "who needs to be algorate?" I don't see technology as the drive to make people more algorate.
- wazoox 15y ago> Until such a time that a computer is as ubiquitous as paper and pen or a stick and some sand -- I think algorithms and programming will be skills relegated to a privileged, nerdy class of people. But computers are about to become more ubiquitous than paper and pen; most people do (or will soon) constantly carry a powerful computer in their pocket.
- agentultra 15y agoAnd even if that does become true, should everyone know how to program them? Or be able to express ideas about algorithms? That's like saying everyone who has money should be an accountant.
- ctdonath 15y agoEveryone who has money should be able to balance a checkbook and write a simple budget.
- jays 15y agoOh how I wish this was the reality we lived in. Sadly, it's not..
- danso 15y agoNot everyone who is functionally literate must also be able to write a screenplay or discern why Hemingway's style is superior to Tom Clancy's.
- wazoox 15y agoMost people don't manipulate numbers in their daily lives much, but are taught basic maths. Most people are taught to write an essay, though they probably won't do it at all in their daily lives. In the same vein, most people should be taught how programming works and do some very basic stuff, simply to get what it's about, not to practice it daily.