5 ms·

We already live in that world, and it's been that way for centuries. If all the automobile designers and mechanical engineers were to vanish today, do you thin

We already live in that world, and it's been that way for centuries. If all the automobile designers and mechanical engineers were to vanish today, do you think lay people would be able to hop into the driver's seat and take over the job? The same is true for nearly every industry, and always has been. The only reason we've come this far as a civilization is because we record what we learn and pass the knowledge on to future generations of people who are interested in that knowledge. Not everyone has the same interests, and barring an apocalypse, no one needs to know it all at once. Programming is no different. Sure, things like reading, computer literacy, math, biology, basic problem solving, etc. are important base skills for everyone to know. Once those foundations are in place, delving further is a matter of preference, and not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics.

meemoo 13y ago
The base level of computer literacy should be deeper than "how to use Word" to some level of algorithmic literacy.
- albeec13 13y ago
  Why? Most people can't even use a word processor or spreadsheet right now, let alone comprehend algorithms and programming. Besides, we all drive cars and we all use refrigerators and air conditioners daily. Not everyone knows how those work or is able to fix them. If they did, we'd be a world of "jacks of all trades and experts in none." That's not what got us to this point as a technologically advanced civilization. It's far more important for everyone to know how to drive properly and safely than it is for them to know how to perform maintenance on their cars. In fact, having everyone do their own car maintenance would probably be just as dangerous as putting programming into the hands of people who don't know how to avoid phishing attacks and computer viruses.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Most people can't even use a word processor or spreadsheet right now, let alone comprehend algorithms and programming. If you can comprehend written procedures for a task, you can comprehend programming (you might not be able to understand algorithmic analysis, but that's a different issue.) People (especially people that are otherwise knowledge workers) that "can't" do that largely can't because they've been taught that computers are deep magic accessible only to an elite priesthood. I don't think we are at the point where truly universal programming literacy is necessary or practical in the very short term, but just as with writing before it became something universally expected, I think we are at least at the point where we should start to see it as part of the basic repertoire of knowledge workers, even those whose primary job isn't producing computer code.
lutusp 13y ago
> We already live in that world, and it's been that way for centuries. I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. Fair enough, but in a democracy, that chasm cannot grow too large before a citizen's right to choose becomes meaningless. > ... not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics. Not the topic. We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.
- albeec13 13y ago
  >I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. No, not exactly. I'm referring to the tendency for most people to be experts in one or two fields and mostly ignorant in others that are not related to their core competency. >We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel. That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist", nor does learning math translate to "being a calculus professor."
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist" No, people should know how to use computers which does translate to "know how to program" but not "be a professional software developer", just like knowing how to effectively function in a world with written language does translate into "knowing how to read and write" but not "be a novelist".
    - 13y ago
pessimizer 13y ago
To be fair, an awful lot more people know how to read and write now than even 50 years ago, and I think the internet is bringing that number even higher. I'm astounded at how much better the spelling and grammar of the commentariat has gotten since the early days of ubiquitous internet. Most people seem to be reading something every day (even if it's about Beyonce) and that means that their ability to read about what they want to know more about has gotten better. The effect of this newly capable public on entrenched power structures can't help but to ultimately be positive. I understand how the same case for computing could be made. >Not everyone has the same interests, and barring an apocalypse, no one needs to know it all at once. Programming is no different. knowing everything at once != knowing how to program We're not that smart, people. The same case could be made for not teaching people how to cook, or drive a car. What makes something a "base skill"?

meemoo 13y ago

The base level of computer literacy should be deeper than "how to use Word" to some level of algorithmic literacy.

albeec13 13y ago
Why? Most people can't even use a word processor or spreadsheet right now, let alone comprehend algorithms and programming. Besides, we all drive cars and we all use refrigerators and air conditioners daily. Not everyone knows how those work or is able to fix them. If they did, we'd be a world of "jacks of all trades and experts in none." That's not what got us to this point as a technologically advanced civilization. It's far more important for everyone to know how to drive properly and safely than it is for them to know how to perform maintenance on their cars. In fact, having everyone do their own car maintenance would probably be just as dangerous as putting programming into the hands of people who don't know how to avoid phishing attacks and computer viruses.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Most people can't even use a word processor or spreadsheet right now, let alone comprehend algorithms and programming. If you can comprehend written procedures for a task, you can comprehend programming (you might not be able to understand algorithmic analysis, but that's a different issue.) People (especially people that are otherwise knowledge workers) that "can't" do that largely can't because they've been taught that computers are deep magic accessible only to an elite priesthood. I don't think we are at the point where truly universal programming literacy is necessary or practical in the very short term, but just as with writing before it became something universally expected, I think we are at least at the point where we should start to see it as part of the basic repertoire of knowledge workers, even those whose primary job isn't producing computer code.

lutusp 13y ago

> We already live in that world, and it's been that way for centuries. I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. Fair enough, but in a democracy, that chasm cannot grow too large before a citizen's right to choose becomes meaningless. > ... not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics. Not the topic. We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.

albeec13 13y ago
>I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. No, not exactly. I'm referring to the tendency for most people to be experts in one or two fields and mostly ignorant in others that are not related to their core competency. >We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel. That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist", nor does learning math translate to "being a calculus professor."
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist" No, people should know how to use computers which does translate to "know how to program" but not "be a professional software developer", just like knowing how to effectively function in a world with written language does translate into "knowing how to read and write" but not "be a novelist".
  - 13y ago

pessimizer 13y ago

To be fair, an awful lot more people know how to read and write now than even 50 years ago, and I think the internet is bringing that number even higher. I'm astounded at how much better the spelling and grammar of the commentariat has gotten since the early days of ubiquitous internet. Most people seem to be reading something every day (even if it's about Beyonce) and that means that their ability to read about what they want to know more about has gotten better. The effect of this newly capable public on entrenched power structures can't help but to ultimately be positive. I understand how the same case for computing could be made. >Not everyone has the same interests, and barring an apocalypse, no one needs to know it all at once. Programming is no different. knowing everything at once != knowing how to program We're not that smart, people. The same case could be made for not teaching people how to cook, or drive a car. What makes something a "base skill"?