7 ms·

The title says "Please don't learn to code". Holy crap, how can so many smart people be so incredibly bad at reading comprehension.

by zedshaw 14y ago

dbecker 14y ago
The title was meant as an attention grabber, but the text does not suggest that NO ONE should learn to code. The text only disputes that EVERYONE should learn to code.
- gregors 14y ago
  back up 200 years and replace coding with reading...
  - sklipo 14y ago
    back up 200 years and replace plumbing with reading... Your argument isn't evidence for anything at all. There's a big difference between reading and coding: reading is a very useful method of communication. Everyone should be literate just like everyone should be able to speak. Coding, on the other hand, is much more along the lines of plumbing than language.
    - gaelian 14y ago
      There was a book written by Douglas Rushkoff called Program or be programmed[1] wherein he asserts quite a compelling argument for why learning at least a basic understanding of programming and how a computer works actually is (or very soon will be) just as important as being able to read. The basic crux of the issue for me is this: you can control a society via the flow of information through that society. Both reading and more recently, programming are activities intimately connected to the flow of information through modern society. Along with an understanding of programming comes a greater understanding of computers to computer networks to privacy issues and all manner of things that more people should be thinking about more conciously, regardless of whether they wish to program as a career. While no doubt the flow of material through plumbing pipes is also quite important for societies in general, I don't think an understanding of plumbing affords quite the same insights and protections against being potentially manipulated by the powers that be as one might acquire through the pursuit of reading and programming. 1. http://programorbeprogrammed.com/ http://programorbeprogrammed.com/
      - sklipo 14y ago
        Of course people will need to be informed on security and privacy on computers, but that doesn't require an understanding of coding. I know how to safely drive a car, for example, but I have no idea how it works under the hood (and frankly, I don't have the time or energy to learn this). Coding really is a specialized job. For sure, some people would be better off learning it because it can be useful, but everyday people don't need to know how to code just like they don't need to know how a car works. All they need to know is how to drive safely, or use the computer securely. And really, I don't get this whole "learn to code, learn how your computer works" idea. When I first learned ruby, I didn't magically gain an understanding of filesystems and networks and all those other things. My dad, on the other hand, who doesn't know how to code, in fact he didn't even know what a kernel was, can fix your computer up in a jiffy (hardware and software both, particularly windows). He's in fact still better than me at this, because he knows all the intimate little details of the windows UI and what each thing does, what each error probably means. So the point is, you don't need to learn how to code to know how to use a computer well, and learning javascript won't really help you with that either. If all you want is to know how to protect your computer from the powers that be, don't learn to code; just listen to what the experts have to say on the subject.
        slurgfest 14y ago
        Many programs are tiny, written in poorly-regarded languages (Excel, app macros, shell, etc.), and written by people without the title of "software engineer." Many times the number of well-known products like Word or Stack Overflow. But that doesn't mean they are not programs and it doesn't mean they are not serving useful purposes. And the number of areas where little programs could help in the future is huge. Programming is not a specialized job and it does not require specialized knowledge. Even idiots can program. The fact that you can program shows that you had interest and access to computers but it does not put you in a special club. Programmers ARE everyday people, not a priestly caste who can be distinguished from birth. And in the last few decades their numbers have dramatically increased - with each generation's clueless and accidental beginners becoming the next generation's experts. We don't tell people "please don't learn any math" or "please don't learn any geography" even though most people will not become specialists or need a specialist's understanding. These are still generally useful things and things which make you an educated and modern person. We don't know where they will be useful or to whom. It benefits many more individuals to know something about these, and it greatly benefits our society that many individuals know something about them. "just listen to what the experts have to say" is something that started to change as of the Gutenberg Bible, thank God.
  - dbecker 14y ago
    Life was hard 200 years ago. Taking the time to learn to read would have been a major hardship for some people, and many (most of whom could not afford books) may not have used the skill much. I think it was reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago.
    - rsanchez1 14y ago
      England had a literacy rate of 62% around 1800, so no, it was not reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago. The American Revolution was spread through pamphlets passed out at the local tavern. Newspapers played a major role in educating the people about the Revolution and passing around the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution, so no, it was not reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago. By the way, if Gutenberg's Printing Revolution made the written word so cheap that pamphlets could be handed out to as many people as possible, I don't think there would have been many who could not afford books 200 years ago. If there were many who didn't use the reading skill much, then there wouldn't have been all the hoopla over the Stamp Act the British imposed on the American colonies. You sorta need to know how to read to make any use of stamps 200 years ago. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates
      - dbecker 14y ago
        A 62% literacy rate doesn't mean it was unreasonable to have a literacy rate less than 100%.
B-Con 14y ago
That is an interesting question, because so many people claim to have read his post yet have no idea what he actually said. Please re-read it. The post title was an exaggeration, like almost all of his blog post titles are. If you actually read the content of the post, you realize that he clearly wasn't actually saying.
- zedshaw 14y ago
  I did read it, and he's wrong. That's why I wrote mine.
  - bryze 14y ago
    I think we need no more a concise declaration of your bias than this.
    - mathetic 14y ago
      When you say it like that it sounds it is bad to be biased in this particular situation. First of all it sounds much better than "I read it, he is correct. This is why I wrote mine." considering that he is refuting the idea presented. Being biased is simply being opinionated and luckily Zed Shaw's opinion is that everyone should/can learn code. This is why he has free books, which actually teach some programming to everyone.
      - efuquen 14y ago
        The thing being argued here isn't whether Jeff or Zed is right, the thing being argued is that Zed Shaw grossly misinterpreted what Jeff was saying, which he did.
  - laughinghan 14y ago
    You did read it, and he's wrong, and that's why you wrote an article that did not respond to his (supposedly wrong) arguments at all, and instead presented an ad hominem attack saying he "[gets] off on making beginners feel like they're worthless for attempting something"?
laughinghan 14y ago
Yes, it does. Jeff's article then proceeds to present a very reasonable argument to consider for why you might not want to code, specifically, there are many useful skills in the world and maybe there's one that would serve you better than coding. Your article completely ignores Jeff's article and presents what amounts to an ad hominem attack on Jeff, claiming he's trying to make beginners feel like losers. Do you honestly believe so many people on here are so bad at reading comprehension that they can't parse the phrase "Please don't learn to code"? I think you're smarter than that. I think we both know that's a straw man. What actually happened was that many people read Jeff's post and realized that the title "Please don't learn to code" was not a summary of his article, it was a title, presenting the highlight of his article, which is that there are some people in some situations in which he'd tell them, "don't learn to code, learn this other thing that will be more useful to you".
- scottbruin 14y ago
  To be fair, titles should give some idea of what's in an essay or post. If you use a linkbait headline is it that unreasonable to address the more ridiculous point made by the headline?
  - kaffiene 14y ago
    To be fair, people should read AND understand what they're raging against, BEFORE they post to the net. Is it too much to ask that bloggers actually comprehend what they're raging against?
  - dbecker 14y ago
    Maybe it's fair to criticize the headline. But it's silly to criticize people's reading comprehension on the basis that they read the article rather than just the headline.
- SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
  >Jeff's article then proceeds to present a very reasonable argument to consider for why you might not want to code, specifically, there are many useful skills in the world and maybe there's one that would serve you better than coding. Programming is a super-power, even if you only know a little bit. Knowing how to program gives you abilities to create unequaled in the history of the world. I think that the more people who know how to program, the better, even if they "suck" by comparison to a rock star programmer (or alternately a fat guy who knows C++ [1]). Maybe 95% of people will never be lead programmer on a commercial product, but almost everyone ends up, e.g., searching Google -- and not being afraid of complex search results can mean the difference between digging through six pages of garbage and getting relevant results right away because you weren't afraid to use the minus operator or other more "advanced" search features. And probably most people in the workplace have to deal with an Excel spreadsheet from time to time -- being willing to dig into creating more complex formulas because they aren't afraid of lists of functions with parameters would be an obvious side effect of knowing a bit of code. Regardless, Zed is saying that no one should be telling you that you SHOULDN'T learn to program, period. And I agree. [1] http://betabeat.com/2012/05/04/pro-tip-from-silicon-valley-skip-the-hipsters-and-hire-more-fat-guys-who-know-c/ http://betabeat.com/2012/05/04/pro-tip-from-silicon-valley-s...
mitsche 14y ago
While I didn’t like Jeff Atwood’s post, I didn’t take the title literally. To me it seems obvious that it can also be read as "Please don't >learn to code<", meaning that we (people who understand and write code) might be wrong in assuming that it’s a skill on par with algebra or cooking in importance and are therefore in no position to lure people into learning programming as if it were the one big roadblock separating them from enlightenment. Or something like that. Natural languages are ambiguous. One of the reasons why they’re more fun than programming languages.
rwallace 14y ago
And the title of the response says "Please don't become anything." I think it's better to focus on the content, not the title.
jscheel 14y ago
Yes, because you have never written a post with an incendiary title.
brazzy 14y ago
That's funny, given that your entire article betrays a spectacular lack of reading comprehension on your part. Hint: other people's articles, just like yours, consist of more than a title.
readme 14y ago
Apparently you. Have you thought about reading the post, rather than just the title? The same exact statement could be applied to the title of your post "Please don't become anything, especially not a programmer" Nice article by the way, and thanks for your work.

The title says "Please don't learn to code". Holy crap, how can so many smart people be so incredibly bad at reading comprehension.

by zedshaw 14y ago

The title says "Please don't learn to code". Holy crap, how can so many smart people be so incredibly bad at reading comprehension.

dbecker 14y ago

The title was meant as an attention grabber, but the text does not suggest that NO ONE should learn to code. The text only disputes that EVERYONE should learn to code.

gregors 14y ago
back up 200 years and replace coding with reading...
- sklipo 14y ago
  back up 200 years and replace plumbing with reading... Your argument isn't evidence for anything at all. There's a big difference between reading and coding: reading is a very useful method of communication. Everyone should be literate just like everyone should be able to speak. Coding, on the other hand, is much more along the lines of plumbing than language.
  - gaelian 14y ago
    There was a book written by Douglas Rushkoff called Program or be programmed[1] wherein he asserts quite a compelling argument for why learning at least a basic understanding of programming and how a computer works actually is (or very soon will be) just as important as being able to read. The basic crux of the issue for me is this: you can control a society via the flow of information through that society. Both reading and more recently, programming are activities intimately connected to the flow of information through modern society. Along with an understanding of programming comes a greater understanding of computers to computer networks to privacy issues and all manner of things that more people should be thinking about more conciously, regardless of whether they wish to program as a career. While no doubt the flow of material through plumbing pipes is also quite important for societies in general, I don't think an understanding of plumbing affords quite the same insights and protections against being potentially manipulated by the powers that be as one might acquire through the pursuit of reading and programming. 1. http://programorbeprogrammed.com/ http://programorbeprogrammed.com/
    - sklipo 14y ago
      Of course people will need to be informed on security and privacy on computers, but that doesn't require an understanding of coding. I know how to safely drive a car, for example, but I have no idea how it works under the hood (and frankly, I don't have the time or energy to learn this). Coding really is a specialized job. For sure, some people would be better off learning it because it can be useful, but everyday people don't need to know how to code just like they don't need to know how a car works. All they need to know is how to drive safely, or use the computer securely. And really, I don't get this whole "learn to code, learn how your computer works" idea. When I first learned ruby, I didn't magically gain an understanding of filesystems and networks and all those other things. My dad, on the other hand, who doesn't know how to code, in fact he didn't even know what a kernel was, can fix your computer up in a jiffy (hardware and software both, particularly windows). He's in fact still better than me at this, because he knows all the intimate little details of the windows UI and what each thing does, what each error probably means. So the point is, you don't need to learn how to code to know how to use a computer well, and learning javascript won't really help you with that either. If all you want is to know how to protect your computer from the powers that be, don't learn to code; just listen to what the experts have to say on the subject.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        Many programs are tiny, written in poorly-regarded languages (Excel, app macros, shell, etc.), and written by people without the title of "software engineer." Many times the number of well-known products like Word or Stack Overflow. But that doesn't mean they are not programs and it doesn't mean they are not serving useful purposes. And the number of areas where little programs could help in the future is huge. Programming is not a specialized job and it does not require specialized knowledge. Even idiots can program. The fact that you can program shows that you had interest and access to computers but it does not put you in a special club. Programmers ARE everyday people, not a priestly caste who can be distinguished from birth. And in the last few decades their numbers have dramatically increased - with each generation's clueless and accidental beginners becoming the next generation's experts. We don't tell people "please don't learn any math" or "please don't learn any geography" even though most people will not become specialists or need a specialist's understanding. These are still generally useful things and things which make you an educated and modern person. We don't know where they will be useful or to whom. It benefits many more individuals to know something about these, and it greatly benefits our society that many individuals know something about them. "just listen to what the experts have to say" is something that started to change as of the Gutenberg Bible, thank God.
- dbecker 14y ago
  Life was hard 200 years ago. Taking the time to learn to read would have been a major hardship for some people, and many (most of whom could not afford books) may not have used the skill much. I think it was reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago.
  - rsanchez1 14y ago
    England had a literacy rate of 62% around 1800, so no, it was not reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago. The American Revolution was spread through pamphlets passed out at the local tavern. Newspapers played a major role in educating the people about the Revolution and passing around the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution, so no, it was not reasonable for some people not to learn to read 200 years ago. By the way, if Gutenberg's Printing Revolution made the written word so cheap that pamphlets could be handed out to as many people as possible, I don't think there would have been many who could not afford books 200 years ago. If there were many who didn't use the reading skill much, then there wouldn't have been all the hoopla over the Stamp Act the British imposed on the American colonies. You sorta need to know how to read to make any use of stamps 200 years ago. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates
    - dbecker 14y ago
      A 62% literacy rate doesn't mean it was unreasonable to have a literacy rate less than 100%.

B-Con 14y ago

That is an interesting question, because so many people claim to have read his post yet have no idea what he actually said. Please re-read it. The post title was an exaggeration, like almost all of his blog post titles are. If you actually read the content of the post, you realize that he clearly wasn't actually saying.

zedshaw 14y ago
I did read it, and he's wrong. That's why I wrote mine.
- bryze 14y ago
  I think we need no more a concise declaration of your bias than this.
  - mathetic 14y ago
    When you say it like that it sounds it is bad to be biased in this particular situation. First of all it sounds much better than "I read it, he is correct. This is why I wrote mine." considering that he is refuting the idea presented. Being biased is simply being opinionated and luckily Zed Shaw's opinion is that everyone should/can learn code. This is why he has free books, which actually teach some programming to everyone.
    - efuquen 14y ago
      The thing being argued here isn't whether Jeff or Zed is right, the thing being argued is that Zed Shaw grossly misinterpreted what Jeff was saying, which he did.
- laughinghan 14y ago
  You did read it, and he's wrong, and that's why you wrote an article that did not respond to his (supposedly wrong) arguments at all, and instead presented an ad hominem attack saying he "[gets] off on making beginners feel like they're worthless for attempting something"?

laughinghan 14y ago

Yes, it does. Jeff's article then proceeds to present a very reasonable argument to consider for why you might not want to code, specifically, there are many useful skills in the world and maybe there's one that would serve you better than coding. Your article completely ignores Jeff's article and presents what amounts to an ad hominem attack on Jeff, claiming he's trying to make beginners feel like losers. Do you honestly believe so many people on here are so bad at reading comprehension that they can't parse the phrase "Please don't learn to code"? I think you're smarter than that. I think we both know that's a straw man. What actually happened was that many people read Jeff's post and realized that the title "Please don't learn to code" was not a summary of his article, it was a title, presenting the highlight of his article, which is that there are some people in some situations in which he'd tell them, "don't learn to code, learn this other thing that will be more useful to you".

scottbruin 14y ago
To be fair, titles should give some idea of what's in an essay or post. If you use a linkbait headline is it that unreasonable to address the more ridiculous point made by the headline?
- kaffiene 14y ago
  To be fair, people should read AND understand what they're raging against, BEFORE they post to the net. Is it too much to ask that bloggers actually comprehend what they're raging against?
- dbecker 14y ago
  Maybe it's fair to criticize the headline. But it's silly to criticize people's reading comprehension on the basis that they read the article rather than just the headline.
SomeCallMeTim 14y ago
>Jeff's article then proceeds to present a very reasonable argument to consider for why you might not want to code, specifically, there are many useful skills in the world and maybe there's one that would serve you better than coding. Programming is a super-power, even if you only know a little bit. Knowing how to program gives you abilities to create unequaled in the history of the world. I think that the more people who know how to program, the better, even if they "suck" by comparison to a rock star programmer (or alternately a fat guy who knows C++ [1]). Maybe 95% of people will never be lead programmer on a commercial product, but almost everyone ends up, e.g., searching Google -- and not being afraid of complex search results can mean the difference between digging through six pages of garbage and getting relevant results right away because you weren't afraid to use the minus operator or other more "advanced" search features. And probably most people in the workplace have to deal with an Excel spreadsheet from time to time -- being willing to dig into creating more complex formulas because they aren't afraid of lists of functions with parameters would be an obvious side effect of knowing a bit of code. Regardless, Zed is saying that no one should be telling you that you SHOULDN'T learn to program, period. And I agree. [1] http://betabeat.com/2012/05/04/pro-tip-from-silicon-valley-skip-the-hipsters-and-hire-more-fat-guys-who-know-c/ http://betabeat.com/2012/05/04/pro-tip-from-silicon-valley-s...

mitsche 14y ago

While I didn’t like Jeff Atwood’s post, I didn’t take the title literally. To me it seems obvious that it can also be read as "Please don't >learn to code<", meaning that we (people who understand and write code) might be wrong in assuming that it’s a skill on par with algebra or cooking in importance and are therefore in no position to lure people into learning programming as if it were the one big roadblock separating them from enlightenment. Or something like that. Natural languages are ambiguous. One of the reasons why they’re more fun than programming languages.

rwallace 14y ago

And the title of the response says "Please don't become anything." I think it's better to focus on the content, not the title.

jscheel 14y ago

Yes, because you have never written a post with an incendiary title.

brazzy 14y ago

That's funny, given that your entire article betrays a spectacular lack of reading comprehension on your part. Hint: other people's articles, just like yours, consist of more than a title.

readme 14y ago

Apparently you. Have you thought about reading the post, rather than just the title? The same exact statement could be applied to the title of your post "Please don't become anything, especially not a programmer" Nice article by the way, and thanks for your work.