12 ms·

Programming is the new High School Diploma

137 points by DanielBMarkham 15y ago

itmag 15y ago
I agree, if "programming" is taken to mean a broad understanding of eg processes, iteration, encapsulation, abstract categories, causality, concurrency, constraints, data formats, networks, stuff like that. In other words, to have something resembling the mental model of a programmer, without writing code. In that sense, I can see "programming" being the new highschool diploma. But if he means it literally, then I don't agree.
agscala 15y ago
I don't think that programming is going to be a required skill like a lot of people here say it is. As much as I love programming and machines and computers, I don't think I want to be serviced in every area of my life by a machine. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. In the foreseeable future, there will be jobs for the non-tech-savvy folks. When I read articles like this, I get the feeling that some people love programming and computers so much they get all giddy thinking that everybody will need to be programmers at some point. Don't get me wrong though, I do think that people who have the capacity to wield computers have a lot of power on their hands, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that everyone will need to be programmers eventually.
steele 15y ago
As a mechanic, I am a trained and licensed auto mechanic. Many, many people drive cars. Therefore, auto repair is the new High School Diploma. etc etc
- kls 15y ago
  I tend to agree, it's the reason "auto shop" is an elective. I think that a general computing course in high school is desperately needed but to go as deep as programming I just don't know that it would produce the results we need.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
cletus 15y ago
I disagree with this analogy. Latin is (IMHO) a better comparison. Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3285212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3285212 I don't see the need for everyone to be a programmer. Nor do I see programming to be as fundamental as literacy or numeracy.
phren0logy 15y ago
This only makes sense if you look at a process that involves a computer (which is nearly everything these days) and stop looking once you reach the computer. There are many more steps to nearly every process that involves a computer. The parts that are best performed by a computer most likely already are (at least here in the US). As computers improve, their role will continue to be expanded, but this curve will flatten out. Granted, the curve is in the early part of flattening and has decimated jobs, but I don't think that it will continue forever.
DanielStraight 15y ago
Suggesting that everyone needs to know how to program is indicative of tunnel vision. What do any of these educated and skilled people need with programming? (By no means a complete list) Artists Bakers Brewers Chefs Electricians Fashion designers Firefighters Fishermen (commercial boat captains in general as well) Mechanics Musicians Pilots (including maritime pilots) Plumbers Psychiatrists Stylists Winemakers Zookeepers Even if we were to somehow automate all these jobs (which frankly I'm not sure is actually possible), someone will need to maintain the equipment. It can't be automation all the way down. I think this attitude is dangerous, and considering these jobs "dehumanizing" is, frankly, disrespectful and betrays a lack of understanding of what non-office-workers do. I highly recommend watching Mike Rowe's TED talk for a counterpoint: http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.html http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.htm...
- Swizec 15y ago
  Well, let's see. Artists - new forms of art, html5, cool particle effects, webgl, 3D model scripts (for videos and such) and so on. A lot of use. Bakers - baking is a science, machine learning to figure out just the perfect ingredients for the best bread? Pastry? Etc? I'm fairly certain there's a reason why Oreos taste just the way they do. Brewers - same as the above. Why does Guinness taste just so? There's a lot of science behind that, science and stats. Chefs - the same argument applies. I also suggest you watch The Best Hamburger Ever -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UB_TVznOwK8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U... Electricians - this one is a bit tougher, but some lighting systems in some houses are pretty damn complex - to the point I'm almost certain there are some microcontrollers involved. Or what about stage lighting? Sure it's physical, but it's still programming. Fashion designers - a tough one, but someone has to program all those looms (although that's fabrics). They could also decide to turn it into a science, or what about those Samsung (or was it Philips?) LED fabrics that can be programmed to make lightshows. That could make it into fashion too. Firefighters - ok you got me here, this is a very physical job that probably wouldn't benefit from programming .... oooh, how about fire prediction? Calculating how it will spread in a building? That sort of stuff? Fishermen - have you seen the amount of high tech on a modern fishing boat (on telly for instance)? Puts the average reddit battle station to shame. Those things are complex and look very programmable. Mechanics - don't modern cars depend a lot on their electronics? Aren't there people who almost do nothing other than tune engines? Isn't that quite a bit like programming? Musicians - a guy at my faculty made a software that does some intricate things with music, I forget what it was, but basically machine learning on sounds and stuff like that. All very interesting and programming-heavy. Also the effects some peopel use these days are pretty damn awesome ... programmable? Pilots - don't they already pretty much program the auto pilot? What I've seen on television (discovery channel for instance) that thing is very complex and it doesn't look too far from programming when they input their commands. Plumbers - microcontrollers that control the amount of water flow based on time of day and season for the best water economy. That is all. Psychiatrists - they already program people's minds. They don't need anything more than that or they'd be too scary. Stylists - depends on the kind of stylist. Machine learning from tweets about a celebrity to figure out their best look? To figure out trends in style in advance so the celebrity client always looks like they're ahead of the curve? Hell, apply this to fashion designers as well. Winemakers - it's a science. A lot more goes into a bottle of wine than most of us think (I've seen how advanced the field of tea tasting is). I'm sure there's a lot of chances for programming therein. Zookeepers - when do you put a mommy bear and a daddy bear together in the pen so they don't eat each other and produce baby bears instead? ok that's statistics, but a little R programming wouldn't hurt. Guess what I'm saying is, almost all of these professions could benefit from at least programming in R. edit: The point is that, if all those people at least knew about programming, who knows what they'd be able to create or at least think of (and then get someone to do it)?
Tichy 15y ago
Programming seems so easy compared to some other jobs. You can pick it up in a couple of weeks by reading a book. If you want to program something more complex, give it another two weeks and another book or online tutorial. I can't help thinking about medicine instead. Admittedly I haven't tried, but it seems unlikely that the same thing would work for medicine (studying books for a couple of weeks). Even learning medicine in isolation (as is common for programmers) seems like madness. I will now go looking for tutorials on removing an appendix on YouTube, but I kind of hope that I won't find much...
- vbtemp 15y ago
  Right, it's so easy (too easy, even). That's why Internet Protocol suite was programmed in two weeks in the 1970s after Vint Cerf and his team thumbed through a graph theory textbook on the shelf. And on that note, it's also why the MRI reconstruction algorithms were developed by a couple college dropouts who got their certification in Java from the local community college. So, I need to run now and read my new book "Learning Programming Human Models of Cognition in 24 Hours", then I'm going to produce some cutting-edge research after I hack up some DNA analysis code in Ruby or something (all i need to do is read a few blogz on this, right?). Pfft. lol @ the losers who get computer science degrees.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    Not everybody who does programming does it on the level of creating the next Internet Protocol Suite. Most applications that are being developed are 100% standard fare (CRUD). Also a lot of programmers seem to get by just fine without a CS degree. (I've got a maths degree and minored in CS, but still, sometimes I feel I wasted my time). In fact I don't think I have ever been asked by an employer to code something complicated. If I were doing a startup it might be a different matter. Are you saying that you shouldn't bother to read the PickAxe book or the PragProg Rails guide unless you have a CS degree? Also, most code is probably crap but works anyway. I suspect the same can't be said for appendix removals.
    - vbtemp 15y ago
Pent 15y ago
I think that the author of this post might be missing that he could be a bit biased because generally people surround themselves with others that share the same hobbies and opinions. I still find many of the people I meet daily are completely computer illiterate. /speculation
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bhousel 15y ago
Computer Literacy is the new Programming
bstewartnyc 15y ago
I dont know if most people will need to program computers (write code) but I do think the formalism of "imperative knowledge" is actually in its infancy now. And by that I mean the study of processes, the formalizing of "how to do things", and that can include many forms: management, manufacturing, economics, etc. A basic understanding of algorithms and data structures may be a requirement in liberal arts educations because in theory it can apply to so many areas.
saltcod 15y ago
Your points are valid, if a little protracted. The issue for the next 20-50 years isn't that everyone needs to become a programmer, its that currently no one is becoming a programmer. Until we start to graduate people from high school with some ability and interest in programming, we're in tough shape. At the present time, its near impossible to find a school system anywhere with a good programming/CS program. And the changes will take a long time to implement: government will need to invest heavily in teaching teachers to program (and teach programming), and invest in ever-changing computer lab infrastructure. The future looks as ripe for companies like CodeAcademy as it is bleak for government-run education systems.
- randomdata 15y ago
  There is nobody becoming programmers because it is a poor profession to get into. Locally (outside the US), I see job postings that require "programming gods" for the job, that top the pay scale out at $70K. The US is reported to fair better, where programming deities can earn over $100K, but mediocre programmers still do not earn that much from what I gather. It takes a lot of work to become even a mediocre programmer, and when you get there, there is no room for advancement. The programmers job is to automate itself away, yet, unlike the commissioner, the average will never see residuals on the gains from that automation. They say most programmers leave programming by the age of 35 because it is a dead end. Don't get me wrong, I love the field and have no regrets about entering it. I started programming in high school because I was fascinated by it, and the fact I can make a decent living doing what I love is amazing. I do, however, recognize that I could be much further along professionally if I would have poured all those hours into other pursuits. And that's the kicker. Most people are not going to naturally love programming like me and, I'm going to assume, you. Why would they want to spend their formative years on interests they do not particularly love, to find themselves in a job that pays decently, but has no real room for advancement beyond leaving the act of programming entirely?
  - didgeoridoo 15y ago
    I'd agree that programming in isolation is not a tremendously well-remunerated skill. However, it does act as a force multiplier for your other abilities. A non-technical parallel is public speaking. With extraordinary skill (in isolation), you could end up as a PR flack making 100K or so. If you combine great speaking ability with strong organizational and interpersonal skills, you could end up making orders of magnitude more as a CEO or politician. Programming, like public speaking, can be thought of as a delivery mechanism. As more of our world becomes "programmable", the increased reach and leverage of coding ability will make it far more valuable.
Jach 15y ago
Linux supports the notion of a command line or a shell for the same reason that only children read books with only pictures in them. Language, be it English or something else, is the only tool flexible enough to accomplish a sufficiently broad range of tasks. -- Bill Garrett If programming really is the new high school diploma, I expect to see a big failure in the "there's an app for that" meme. If it's the case, at some point people will need to compose apps in new, creative ways that suit their particular individual goal, which no one else has currently thought of to implement in a single one-click app (if it's even possible) and/or which an app that's almost there can't go the rest of the way because the request is too specific to that one user. Of course, I'm more in favor of using the same simple argument made when students ask why they must learn algebra. It shapes their thinking in a positive manner regardless of whether they advance further in the field.
tpatke 15y ago
I think it is possible that one day robots will do all the work and it seems logical that as we progress toward that point programming will be a pretty safe and in demand job. However - I think it is important to consider the political implications of such a future. It is unlikely that 50% unemployment is politically acceptable. If we were to move to a more communist / socialist society would robots still be doing the work? It is unlikely that we all end up programming.
- maxxxxx 15y ago
  It's an illusion that programming will be a safe job. Robots will do most of that too.
  - tfb 15y ago
    I truly think that at some point (far) in the future, robots will put everyone out of "real" work. They'll do everything for us. Money and economics will become irrelevant. Humans will be left to do what we enjoy at will, whether it's spending time with friends and family, exercising, playing music, painting, building things, or all of the above, of course. Some might even take it upon themselves to improve whatever systems are in place, if that's what they enjoy doing. The main obstacle we face, however, is getting everyone on the same page and making the transition from an economy dependent on cash flow to one that is automated where no one has any real responsibilities. I know it's hard to imagine right now, and we can presently think of a million ways why it will never happen; but it's just my opinion: where there's a will there's a way, and for something like this we have to really think outside the box.
    - ilaksh 15y ago
      I agree with most of what you are saying, I have similar beliefs. I think that we need to redesign society from a technological and _primatological_ standpoint because I think a lot of the extreme hierarchy and brutality we see in our world is a result of the way that our cultural frameworks handle our primitive needs such as various ways that men compete for sexual success (such as resource acquisition). The thing that I think people are missing as a realistic concern or change is that by the time these robots are able to replace most human jobs, which doesn't seem like it will be too many decades from now, shortly after that, we have to expect that the robots will become even more capable than humans. The robots will be smarter than people. Normal, unaltered humans will probably eventually be treated like animals. I think that people don't take this possibility seriously (to me it is a likelihood, and probably within my lifetime). I don't think that means we should prevent the next 'species' from taking over, but I do think it means we need to plan for ways that we can integrate with super-intelligent technology in order to stay relevant. And I think that is going to be a very practical issue within a small number of decades.
ZanderEarth32 15y ago
If by "programming" you mean, operate a computer or automated device (machine, tablet, "smartphone", etc.) with some minimum understanding of how it works, then yes I agree. But for everyone to be able to code an app or program from scratch, then no, I don't agree.
angdis 15y ago
I advise all who pontificate about what _SHOULD_ be taught in schools to take a look at what _IS_ actually taught in schools (high-school/college-prep) today. That last thing students is need is yet another hot topic on top of all the other crap they're supposed to be learning. There is far too much specialization going on. What the students need more than ever right now is increased focus on the basics of reading, writing and mathematics. Everything else, including future vocational training, follows from the basic skills of the "three r's".
- chadgeidel 15y ago
  I wish I could upvote this more. "Programming" is just a subset of logic, which is a subset of mathematics. I'm not happy that more folks can't program, but I'm MORE unhappy that more people can't comprehend that - for example - the world is more than 6000 years old.
firemanx 15y ago
I sure hope not. The most dangerous guys at work are the product managers who had a few programming classes in college and think software engineering is "easy". Programming is, like many disciplines, easy to pick up but hard work to truly understand and master.
- mjwalshe 15y ago
  Programminsg is easy its working out what you need to program to solve the is the hard bit.
tfb 15y ago
Awesome post. It definitely addresses the core issues of the "problems" with the downward trend of current job availability and the economy. I think you hit it spot on. I'd like to mention that I've kind of been on the receiving end of some angst towards generally tech-savvy people, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one. I'm a computer engineer, and I've noticed that when the topic of what I do for a living comes up and the person I'm talking to isn't good with computers or isn't an expert in another field, their general attitude towards me changes for the worse. I feel like those outside of the tech industry really resent us programmers, as they likely (and rightly) see us as one of the main causes of present job loss in some industries; but I wish there was a good way to help them see the bigger picture, where technology has always been shifting job availability from industry to industry, and that it really only improves overall quality of life in the long term. For instance, just last Thanksgiving my aunt and I were talking about how much things have changed in the past few decades, and she said something along the lines of "people used to work with their hands, not program computers all day." She said it very negatively; and in the context of the conversation, it was very clear she's actually against the trend of ever-increasing use of computers. There wasn't much I could think of to say at the time that didn't seem rude or disrespectful. But now when I'm on the receiving end of angst towards programmers, I point out that the shifting of jobs throughout industries has always occurred as technology progresses and try to provide examples throughout history. Although it can sometimes be difficult to do this without seeming pompous.
TDL 15y ago
An entire category of work has been left out of this discussion, Sales & Marketing. I would argue that sales people & marketers do not need to learn how to program in order to ply their trades. In fact, adding a technological layer between a sales person & the client/prospect would be detrimental. This doesn't mean there won't be sales people & marketers who will learn to program or experiment with new methods of interacting with client/prospects, but it is not necessary for these professionals to learn how to program. There are other service professions that do not need to know how to program as well(all sorts of entertainers, personal services [trainers, masseuses, barbers/hair stylists, etc.])
cicero 15y ago
Most people don't need to be able to program at a professional level, but they do need to be able to intelligently use computer technology. I think learning a little programming can be helpful for gaining a better understanding how computers work.
batista 15y ago
TL;DR: I am a programmer, thus everybody should be one. I have only programmer's friends and am immersed in programming culture where I work, therefore I don't understand the importance of other professions.
- warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
  I would add that today many of us carry computers around in our pockets that can do all sorts of marvelous things and don't require any programming. The fact that an ever-increasing number of previously dumb devices contain computers doesn't imply the need for an ever-increasing number of programmers. I have even less confidence in the job security of existing programmers who do scripting and/or programming that amounts to little more than patching existing modules together to get relatively simple effects. These jobs are just as susceptible to automation as those of assembly line workers. In software we're where the telephone industry was in the 1940's: there are 350,000 operators in the U.S. alone and the sky's the limit for good-paying jobs as telephone operators. We worry when a small percentage of these good operator jobs are outsourced to foreign workers. We should be worried about virtually all of them being eliminated by automated switches.
paulhauggis 15y ago
Open source has contributed to this. As a business owner, why would I pay for someone to engineer an app when there are so many apps already engineered. I really only need a code mechanic (someone that will get paid less, makes changes to an existing design), a freelancer, or a temporary worker. Lawyers and doctors don't do this. They might give some freebies, but not to the extent of the open source community.
Shorel 15y ago
Just as everyone is already a mathematician, a historian, and a biologist in high school. Learning programming doesn't mean to be any good at it, or choose it as a career.

137 points by DanielBMarkham 15y ago

itmag 15y ago

I agree, if "programming" is taken to mean a broad understanding of eg processes, iteration, encapsulation, abstract categories, causality, concurrency, constraints, data formats, networks, stuff like that. In other words, to have something resembling the mental model of a programmer, without writing code. In that sense, I can see "programming" being the new highschool diploma. But if he means it literally, then I don't agree.

agscala 15y ago

I don't think that programming is going to be a required skill like a lot of people here say it is. As much as I love programming and machines and computers, I don't think I want to be serviced in every area of my life by a machine. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. In the foreseeable future, there will be jobs for the non-tech-savvy folks. When I read articles like this, I get the feeling that some people love programming and computers so much they get all giddy thinking that everybody will need to be programmers at some point. Don't get me wrong though, I do think that people who have the capacity to wield computers have a lot of power on their hands, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that everyone will need to be programmers eventually.

steele 15y ago

As a mechanic, I am a trained and licensed auto mechanic. Many, many people drive cars. Therefore, auto repair is the new High School Diploma. etc etc

kls 15y ago
I tend to agree, it's the reason "auto shop" is an elective. I think that a general computing course in high school is desperately needed but to go as deep as programming I just don't know that it would produce the results we need.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

cletus 15y ago

I disagree with this analogy. Latin is (IMHO) a better comparison. Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3285212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3285212 I don't see the need for everyone to be a programmer. Nor do I see programming to be as fundamental as literacy or numeracy.

phren0logy 15y ago

This only makes sense if you look at a process that involves a computer (which is nearly everything these days) and stop looking once you reach the computer. There are many more steps to nearly every process that involves a computer. The parts that are best performed by a computer most likely already are (at least here in the US). As computers improve, their role will continue to be expanded, but this curve will flatten out. Granted, the curve is in the early part of flattening and has decimated jobs, but I don't think that it will continue forever.

DanielStraight 15y ago

Suggesting that everyone needs to know how to program is indicative of tunnel vision. What do any of these educated and skilled people need with programming? (By no means a complete list) Artists Bakers Brewers Chefs Electricians Fashion designers Firefighters Fishermen (commercial boat captains in general as well) Mechanics Musicians Pilots (including maritime pilots) Plumbers Psychiatrists Stylists Winemakers Zookeepers Even if we were to somehow automate all these jobs (which frankly I'm not sure is actually possible), someone will need to maintain the equipment. It can't be automation all the way down. I think this attitude is dangerous, and considering these jobs "dehumanizing" is, frankly, disrespectful and betrays a lack of understanding of what non-office-workers do. I highly recommend watching Mike Rowe's TED talk for a counterpoint: http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.html http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.htm...

Swizec 15y ago
Well, let's see. Artists - new forms of art, html5, cool particle effects, webgl, 3D model scripts (for videos and such) and so on. A lot of use. Bakers - baking is a science, machine learning to figure out just the perfect ingredients for the best bread? Pastry? Etc? I'm fairly certain there's a reason why Oreos taste just the way they do. Brewers - same as the above. Why does Guinness taste just so? There's a lot of science behind that, science and stats. Chefs - the same argument applies. I also suggest you watch The Best Hamburger Ever -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UB_TVznOwK8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U... Electricians - this one is a bit tougher, but some lighting systems in some houses are pretty damn complex - to the point I'm almost certain there are some microcontrollers involved. Or what about stage lighting? Sure it's physical, but it's still programming. Fashion designers - a tough one, but someone has to program all those looms (although that's fabrics). They could also decide to turn it into a science, or what about those Samsung (or was it Philips?) LED fabrics that can be programmed to make lightshows. That could make it into fashion too. Firefighters - ok you got me here, this is a very physical job that probably wouldn't benefit from programming .... oooh, how about fire prediction? Calculating how it will spread in a building? That sort of stuff? Fishermen - have you seen the amount of high tech on a modern fishing boat (on telly for instance)? Puts the average reddit battle station to shame. Those things are complex and look very programmable. Mechanics - don't modern cars depend a lot on their electronics? Aren't there people who almost do nothing other than tune engines? Isn't that quite a bit like programming? Musicians - a guy at my faculty made a software that does some intricate things with music, I forget what it was, but basically machine learning on sounds and stuff like that. All very interesting and programming-heavy. Also the effects some peopel use these days are pretty damn awesome ... programmable? Pilots - don't they already pretty much program the auto pilot? What I've seen on television (discovery channel for instance) that thing is very complex and it doesn't look too far from programming when they input their commands. Plumbers - microcontrollers that control the amount of water flow based on time of day and season for the best water economy. That is all. Psychiatrists - they already program people's minds. They don't need anything more than that or they'd be too scary. Stylists - depends on the kind of stylist. Machine learning from tweets about a celebrity to figure out their best look? To figure out trends in style in advance so the celebrity client always looks like they're ahead of the curve? Hell, apply this to fashion designers as well. Winemakers - it's a science. A lot more goes into a bottle of wine than most of us think (I've seen how advanced the field of tea tasting is). I'm sure there's a lot of chances for programming therein. Zookeepers - when do you put a mommy bear and a daddy bear together in the pen so they don't eat each other and produce baby bears instead? ok that's statistics, but a little R programming wouldn't hurt. Guess what I'm saying is, almost all of these professions could benefit from at least programming in R. edit: The point is that, if all those people at least knew about programming, who knows what they'd be able to create or at least think of (and then get someone to do it)?

Tichy 15y ago

Programming seems so easy compared to some other jobs. You can pick it up in a couple of weeks by reading a book. If you want to program something more complex, give it another two weeks and another book or online tutorial. I can't help thinking about medicine instead. Admittedly I haven't tried, but it seems unlikely that the same thing would work for medicine (studying books for a couple of weeks). Even learning medicine in isolation (as is common for programmers) seems like madness. I will now go looking for tutorials on removing an appendix on YouTube, but I kind of hope that I won't find much...

vbtemp 15y ago
Right, it's so easy (too easy, even). That's why Internet Protocol suite was programmed in two weeks in the 1970s after Vint Cerf and his team thumbed through a graph theory textbook on the shelf. And on that note, it's also why the MRI reconstruction algorithms were developed by a couple college dropouts who got their certification in Java from the local community college. So, I need to run now and read my new book "Learning Programming Human Models of Cognition in 24 Hours", then I'm going to produce some cutting-edge research after I hack up some DNA analysis code in Ruby or something (all i need to do is read a few blogz on this, right?). Pfft. lol @ the losers who get computer science degrees.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Not everybody who does programming does it on the level of creating the next Internet Protocol Suite. Most applications that are being developed are 100% standard fare (CRUD). Also a lot of programmers seem to get by just fine without a CS degree. (I've got a maths degree and minored in CS, but still, sometimes I feel I wasted my time). In fact I don't think I have ever been asked by an employer to code something complicated. If I were doing a startup it might be a different matter. Are you saying that you shouldn't bother to read the PickAxe book or the PragProg Rails guide unless you have a CS degree? Also, most code is probably crap but works anyway. I suspect the same can't be said for appendix removals.
  - vbtemp 15y ago

Pent 15y ago

I think that the author of this post might be missing that he could be a bit biased because generally people surround themselves with others that share the same hobbies and opinions. I still find many of the people I meet daily are completely computer illiterate. /speculation

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

bhousel 15y ago

Computer Literacy is the new Programming

bstewartnyc 15y ago

I dont know if most people will need to program computers (write code) but I do think the formalism of "imperative knowledge" is actually in its infancy now. And by that I mean the study of processes, the formalizing of "how to do things", and that can include many forms: management, manufacturing, economics, etc. A basic understanding of algorithms and data structures may be a requirement in liberal arts educations because in theory it can apply to so many areas.

saltcod 15y ago

Your points are valid, if a little protracted. The issue for the next 20-50 years isn't that everyone needs to become a programmer, its that currently no one is becoming a programmer. Until we start to graduate people from high school with some ability and interest in programming, we're in tough shape. At the present time, its near impossible to find a school system anywhere with a good programming/CS program. And the changes will take a long time to implement: government will need to invest heavily in teaching teachers to program (and teach programming), and invest in ever-changing computer lab infrastructure. The future looks as ripe for companies like CodeAcademy as it is bleak for government-run education systems.

randomdata 15y ago
There is nobody becoming programmers because it is a poor profession to get into. Locally (outside the US), I see job postings that require "programming gods" for the job, that top the pay scale out at $70K. The US is reported to fair better, where programming deities can earn over $100K, but mediocre programmers still do not earn that much from what I gather. It takes a lot of work to become even a mediocre programmer, and when you get there, there is no room for advancement. The programmers job is to automate itself away, yet, unlike the commissioner, the average will never see residuals on the gains from that automation. They say most programmers leave programming by the age of 35 because it is a dead end. Don't get me wrong, I love the field and have no regrets about entering it. I started programming in high school because I was fascinated by it, and the fact I can make a decent living doing what I love is amazing. I do, however, recognize that I could be much further along professionally if I would have poured all those hours into other pursuits. And that's the kicker. Most people are not going to naturally love programming like me and, I'm going to assume, you. Why would they want to spend their formative years on interests they do not particularly love, to find themselves in a job that pays decently, but has no real room for advancement beyond leaving the act of programming entirely?
- didgeoridoo 15y ago
  I'd agree that programming in isolation is not a tremendously well-remunerated skill. However, it does act as a force multiplier for your other abilities. A non-technical parallel is public speaking. With extraordinary skill (in isolation), you could end up as a PR flack making 100K or so. If you combine great speaking ability with strong organizational and interpersonal skills, you could end up making orders of magnitude more as a CEO or politician. Programming, like public speaking, can be thought of as a delivery mechanism. As more of our world becomes "programmable", the increased reach and leverage of coding ability will make it far more valuable.

Jach 15y ago

Linux supports the notion of a command line or a shell for the same reason that only children read books with only pictures in them. Language, be it English or something else, is the only tool flexible enough to accomplish a sufficiently broad range of tasks. -- Bill Garrett If programming really is the new high school diploma, I expect to see a big failure in the "there's an app for that" meme. If it's the case, at some point people will need to compose apps in new, creative ways that suit their particular individual goal, which no one else has currently thought of to implement in a single one-click app (if it's even possible) and/or which an app that's almost there can't go the rest of the way because the request is too specific to that one user. Of course, I'm more in favor of using the same simple argument made when students ask why they must learn algebra. It shapes their thinking in a positive manner regardless of whether they advance further in the field.

tpatke 15y ago

I think it is possible that one day robots will do all the work and it seems logical that as we progress toward that point programming will be a pretty safe and in demand job. However - I think it is important to consider the political implications of such a future. It is unlikely that 50% unemployment is politically acceptable. If we were to move to a more communist / socialist society would robots still be doing the work? It is unlikely that we all end up programming.

maxxxxx 15y ago
It's an illusion that programming will be a safe job. Robots will do most of that too.
- tfb 15y ago
  I truly think that at some point (far) in the future, robots will put everyone out of "real" work. They'll do everything for us. Money and economics will become irrelevant. Humans will be left to do what we enjoy at will, whether it's spending time with friends and family, exercising, playing music, painting, building things, or all of the above, of course. Some might even take it upon themselves to improve whatever systems are in place, if that's what they enjoy doing. The main obstacle we face, however, is getting everyone on the same page and making the transition from an economy dependent on cash flow to one that is automated where no one has any real responsibilities. I know it's hard to imagine right now, and we can presently think of a million ways why it will never happen; but it's just my opinion: where there's a will there's a way, and for something like this we have to really think outside the box.
  - ilaksh 15y ago
    I agree with most of what you are saying, I have similar beliefs. I think that we need to redesign society from a technological and _primatological_ standpoint because I think a lot of the extreme hierarchy and brutality we see in our world is a result of the way that our cultural frameworks handle our primitive needs such as various ways that men compete for sexual success (such as resource acquisition). The thing that I think people are missing as a realistic concern or change is that by the time these robots are able to replace most human jobs, which doesn't seem like it will be too many decades from now, shortly after that, we have to expect that the robots will become even more capable than humans. The robots will be smarter than people. Normal, unaltered humans will probably eventually be treated like animals. I think that people don't take this possibility seriously (to me it is a likelihood, and probably within my lifetime). I don't think that means we should prevent the next 'species' from taking over, but I do think it means we need to plan for ways that we can integrate with super-intelligent technology in order to stay relevant. And I think that is going to be a very practical issue within a small number of decades.

ZanderEarth32 15y ago

If by "programming" you mean, operate a computer or automated device (machine, tablet, "smartphone", etc.) with some minimum understanding of how it works, then yes I agree. But for everyone to be able to code an app or program from scratch, then no, I don't agree.

angdis 15y ago

I advise all who pontificate about what _SHOULD_ be taught in schools to take a look at what _IS_ actually taught in schools (high-school/college-prep) today. That last thing students is need is yet another hot topic on top of all the other crap they're supposed to be learning. There is far too much specialization going on. What the students need more than ever right now is increased focus on the basics of reading, writing and mathematics. Everything else, including future vocational training, follows from the basic skills of the "three r's".

chadgeidel 15y ago
I wish I could upvote this more. "Programming" is just a subset of logic, which is a subset of mathematics. I'm not happy that more folks can't program, but I'm MORE unhappy that more people can't comprehend that - for example - the world is more than 6000 years old.

firemanx 15y ago

I sure hope not. The most dangerous guys at work are the product managers who had a few programming classes in college and think software engineering is "easy". Programming is, like many disciplines, easy to pick up but hard work to truly understand and master.

mjwalshe 15y ago
Programminsg is easy its working out what you need to program to solve the is the hard bit.

tfb 15y ago

Awesome post. It definitely addresses the core issues of the "problems" with the downward trend of current job availability and the economy. I think you hit it spot on. I'd like to mention that I've kind of been on the receiving end of some angst towards generally tech-savvy people, and I have a feeling I'm not the only one. I'm a computer engineer, and I've noticed that when the topic of what I do for a living comes up and the person I'm talking to isn't good with computers or isn't an expert in another field, their general attitude towards me changes for the worse. I feel like those outside of the tech industry really resent us programmers, as they likely (and rightly) see us as one of the main causes of present job loss in some industries; but I wish there was a good way to help them see the bigger picture, where technology has always been shifting job availability from industry to industry, and that it really only improves overall quality of life in the long term. For instance, just last Thanksgiving my aunt and I were talking about how much things have changed in the past few decades, and she said something along the lines of "people used to work with their hands, not program computers all day." She said it very negatively; and in the context of the conversation, it was very clear she's actually against the trend of ever-increasing use of computers. There wasn't much I could think of to say at the time that didn't seem rude or disrespectful. But now when I'm on the receiving end of angst towards programmers, I point out that the shifting of jobs throughout industries has always occurred as technology progresses and try to provide examples throughout history. Although it can sometimes be difficult to do this without seeming pompous.

TDL 15y ago

An entire category of work has been left out of this discussion, Sales & Marketing. I would argue that sales people & marketers do not need to learn how to program in order to ply their trades. In fact, adding a technological layer between a sales person & the client/prospect would be detrimental. This doesn't mean there won't be sales people & marketers who will learn to program or experiment with new methods of interacting with client/prospects, but it is not necessary for these professionals to learn how to program. There are other service professions that do not need to know how to program as well(all sorts of entertainers, personal services [trainers, masseuses, barbers/hair stylists, etc.])

cicero 15y ago

Most people don't need to be able to program at a professional level, but they do need to be able to intelligently use computer technology. I think learning a little programming can be helpful for gaining a better understanding how computers work.

batista 15y ago

TL;DR: I am a programmer, thus everybody should be one. I have only programmer's friends and am immersed in programming culture where I work, therefore I don't understand the importance of other professions.

warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
I would add that today many of us carry computers around in our pockets that can do all sorts of marvelous things and don't require any programming. The fact that an ever-increasing number of previously dumb devices contain computers doesn't imply the need for an ever-increasing number of programmers. I have even less confidence in the job security of existing programmers who do scripting and/or programming that amounts to little more than patching existing modules together to get relatively simple effects. These jobs are just as susceptible to automation as those of assembly line workers. In software we're where the telephone industry was in the 1940's: there are 350,000 operators in the U.S. alone and the sky's the limit for good-paying jobs as telephone operators. We worry when a small percentage of these good operator jobs are outsourced to foreign workers. We should be worried about virtually all of them being eliminated by automated switches.

paulhauggis 15y ago

Open source has contributed to this. As a business owner, why would I pay for someone to engineer an app when there are so many apps already engineered. I really only need a code mechanic (someone that will get paid less, makes changes to an existing design), a freelancer, or a temporary worker. Lawyers and doctors don't do this. They might give some freebies, but not to the extent of the open source community.

Shorel 15y ago

Just as everyone is already a mathematician, a historian, and a biologist in high school. Learning programming doesn't mean to be any good at it, or choose it as a career.