So I wrote a piece advocating why everyone should learn to code: http://reviewsindepth.com/2011/04/why-everyone-should-learn-to-program/ http://reviewsindepth.

So I wrote a piece advocating why everyone should learn to code: http://reviewsindepth.com/2011/04/why-everyone-should-learn-to-program/ http://reviewsindepth.com/2011/04/why-everyone-should-learn-... I don't think Jeff's piece undermines any of the reasons I put forward there. Going through his points one by one. It's easy to agree that you should ideally write no code - but of course the ideal assumes that all the provided interfaces in the world provide you with everything you desire, need. The point is that the world is such that most of the time this is not the case. It does not assume that coding is the goal. It assumes that there are always various goals that have not been met by existing interfaces or infrastructure. (i.e. that the ideal in the first point can never be achieved in reality) It doesn't necessarily put the method before the problem. It's just assuming that the many of the problems faced by a majority of people (or everyone) in western society can be solved with code. His next point speak to professionalism in coding. In large software projects - you absolutely need professionalism. But many problems people face don't require large software projects to solve. I give an example in the linked piece above of a problem I solved with code that certainly didn't need a large software project. His final point - it does not imply this thin membrane between professionalism and being an amateur coder. In fact - I advocate the complete opposite, yet still think everyone should code. I'm not sure why he thinks it does imply this - so its hard to argue against him here. To me it's prima facie not the case.