4 ms·

While the "Don't Become Anything" thing is valuable (after all it's a thousands of years old insight that can be found in Buddhism for example), the article loo

by stiff 14y ago

While the "Don't Become Anything" thing is valuable (after all it's a thousands of years old insight that can be found in Buddhism for example), the article looks pretty much like a straw man to me. The original post was arguing that "coding" isn't an essential life skill in the way for example reading is and that massive amounts of new coders might not be that good for the world. How is this refuted here in any way? Where is this resentment thing pulled from?

dmauro 14y ago
Yeah, I'm a little surprised this bit of vitriol made it to the top of HN.
zedshaw 14y ago
I'm not refuting his statement that programming is or is not a life skill. My opinion on the matter is demonstrated in my work. I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying. The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. Consider it a guess about Jeff, and a general message about other people who feel the same way.
- prayag 14y ago
  >I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. But Atwood didn't say that. All he said was that it's a trade like Plumbing and not a life skill like being able to read. >The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. But programmers DON'T mostly say that. In fact, I had a very animated discussion with Randy Stross of New York Times at YCombinator where EVERY programmer around was arguing that programming has become an important life skill and should be taught in high school. Of course, this is anecdotal but even the recent articles refuting this on HN shows most programmers are for everyone learning programming. I don't know you as well as other members of the community here but this article seems to be really harsh and doesn't even touch the argument that Atwood made in his article.
  - zedshaw 14y ago
    The title says "Please don't learn to code". The rest of the post is just more of that in different words. Wow, alright I'm just going to stop replying to people who can't even read the title, but still claim it's not saying what it says.
    - erso 14y ago
      I stopped reading your article once I realized you gave the title precedence over the content.
    - laughinghan 14y ago
      The title is not a summary. THE TITLE IS NOT A SUMMARY. The title is a highlight of his article. Presenting the title of his article as a summary, as you do in your article and repeatedly in your comments, is disingenuous and misleading.
    - prayag 14y ago
      If you are insinuating that I didn't read your article. I did. That is why I made the comment. I didn't think much of it. The tangent about Atwood's son was completely tangential and unrelated. Atwood's argument was not about computer science education, it wasn't about meritocracy. You completely missed the point.
    - dkersten 14y ago
      I actually agree with your article, but you can't seriously take Jeff Atwoods title seriously unless you also mean us to take your title seriously - so are you now telling us that we shouldn't become anything? Especially not programmers? I mean, it says it right there. I'll reiterate that I do agree with most of what you wrote and I upvoted this submission because of what you wrote, I just don't think the stance in this (and other) comments is at all valid given the title of your own article.
    - bengillies 14y ago
      You realise that you're not supposed to reply at all to your own thread if you're trolling right?
- B-Con 14y ago
  > Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying. Partially yes, partially no, and for different reasons than claimed in this article. He does argue that fewer people should pursue programming, yes, but it's because they would be more effective elsewhere. His thesis is that people decide that the solution is for them to write code before they know what the problem is, and that some people make careers that follow that trail of thought. From a purely efficient viewpoint, a work force is more effective when there are fewer people mis-fit into it. A guess about his motivations? So basically, this was a strawman to vent frustration onto?
- stiff 14y ago
  He didn't state that people should not become programmers, he stated that people who do not intend to become programmers wouldn't benefit much more from a "coding" course than from a plumbing course, and could instead for example use some knowledge of how to find or build a solutions to their problems in an easy way without actually programming it. I do not necessarily agree with him everywhere, and I do greatly respect your work on "Learn X the hard way", but in my opinion you completely misrepresented what he has written and trivialize a point that actually is interesting and worth thinking about.
sasha-dv 14y ago
>Where is this resentment thing pulled from? Jeff's post: Please Don't Learn to Code Zed's books: Learn To Code The Hard Way

by stiff 14y ago

dmauro 14y ago

Yeah, I'm a little surprised this bit of vitriol made it to the top of HN.

zedshaw 14y ago

I'm not refuting his statement that programming is or is not a life skill. My opinion on the matter is demonstrated in my work. I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying. The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. Consider it a guess about Jeff, and a general message about other people who feel the same way.

prayag 14y ago
>I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. But Atwood didn't say that. All he said was that it's a trade like Plumbing and not a life skill like being able to read. >The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. But programmers DON'T mostly say that. In fact, I had a very animated discussion with Randy Stross of New York Times at YCombinator where EVERY programmer around was arguing that programming has become an important life skill and should be taught in high school. Of course, this is anecdotal but even the recent articles refuting this on HN shows most programmers are for everyone learning programming. I don't know you as well as other members of the community here but this article seems to be really harsh and doesn't even touch the argument that Atwood made in his article.
- zedshaw 14y ago
  The title says "Please don't learn to code". The rest of the post is just more of that in different words. Wow, alright I'm just going to stop replying to people who can't even read the title, but still claim it's not saying what it says.
  - erso 14y ago
    I stopped reading your article once I realized you gave the title precedence over the content.
  - laughinghan 14y ago
    The title is not a summary. THE TITLE IS NOT A SUMMARY. The title is a highlight of his article. Presenting the title of his article as a summary, as you do in your article and repeatedly in your comments, is disingenuous and misleading.
  - prayag 14y ago
    If you are insinuating that I didn't read your article. I did. That is why I made the comment. I didn't think much of it. The tangent about Atwood's son was completely tangential and unrelated. Atwood's argument was not about computer science education, it wasn't about meritocracy. You completely missed the point.
  - dkersten 14y ago
    I actually agree with your article, but you can't seriously take Jeff Atwoods title seriously unless you also mean us to take your title seriously - so are you now telling us that we shouldn't become anything? Especially not programmers? I mean, it says it right there. I'll reiterate that I do agree with most of what you wrote and I upvoted this submission because of what you wrote, I just don't think the stance in this (and other) comments is at all valid given the title of your own article.
  - bengillies 14y ago
    You realise that you're not supposed to reply at all to your own thread if you're trolling right?
B-Con 14y ago
> Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying. Partially yes, partially no, and for different reasons than claimed in this article. He does argue that fewer people should pursue programming, yes, but it's because they would be more effective elsewhere. His thesis is that people decide that the solution is for them to write code before they know what the problem is, and that some people make careers that follow that trail of thought. From a purely efficient viewpoint, a work force is more effective when there are fewer people mis-fit into it. A guess about his motivations? So basically, this was a strawman to vent frustration onto?
stiff 14y ago
He didn't state that people should not become programmers, he stated that people who do not intend to become programmers wouldn't benefit much more from a "coding" course than from a plumbing course, and could instead for example use some knowledge of how to find or build a solutions to their problems in an easy way without actually programming it. I do not necessarily agree with him everywhere, and I do greatly respect your work on "Learn X the hard way", but in my opinion you completely misrepresented what he has written and trivialize a point that actually is interesting and worth thinking about.

sasha-dv 14y ago

>Where is this resentment thing pulled from? Jeff's post: Please Don't Learn to Code Zed's books: Learn To Code The Hard Way