3 ms·
>There will still be a need for computer programmers, but a lot of programming can already be automated [...] We could [...] flat-out ban certain types of robot
by zeteo 14y ago
>There will still be a need for computer programmers, but a lot of programming can already be automated [...]
We could [...] flat-out ban certain types of robots and automated software.
I write software for a living and have no idea what this means. It's either horribly misinformed, or a call to ban compilers.
- sologoub 14y agoWARNING: Sarcasm is present in this statement :) It seems, according to this article anyways, that the answer to developer unemployment is to rid us of efficient IDEs, compliers and other non-sense, and and get back to good old Assembly!
- mjmahone17 14y agoYes, actually: if we wanted to ensure developers stay employed, we should make writing code less efficient. Yes, you're being sarcastic, but that doesn't mean your point isn't spot on: this is in fact what unions have been doing all along, and states like New Jersey don't allow you to pump your own gas, specifically to create inefficiencies in the market that promote employment. If the option is between requiring people to work meaningless jobs, or paying everyone a living wage, which really makes more sense?
- sologoub 14y agoWell... The very basis of my understanding of self causes me to say that there has to be a 3rd option... That said, a living wage would be less wasteful. As for unions, I believe this is pretty much what killed the Twinkie manufacturer - they were not able to even optimize routes.
- qu4z-2 14y agoIt does seem like unemployment is not a problem of too little work, but rather the uneven distribution of it.
- gaius 14y agoEclipse has done more to create jobs than any other software, except maybe SAP.