4 ms·
So, is it computer science or computer programming? This is only going to add a truckload of fuel to the already huge fire that is the confusion between compute
by vezzy-fnord 13y ago
So, is it computer science or computer programming? This is only going to add a truckload of fuel to the already huge fire that is the confusion between computer science and computer programming.
But to be less pedantic, let's actually focus on what this will entail.
First of all, "learning to code" is as ambiguous as "learning a [natural] language". Not all natural languages are Latin, and not all programming languages are ALGOL.
Second, I am highly skeptical as to the intentions of this movement. Yet criticizing it is bound to get you labeled a cynic, a Luddite, an obscurantist or a combination of those. After all, teaching kids to code? How benevolent of them!
Not when you realize that the big moguls standing behind this are probably more concerned about having typists who can write instructions, rather than skilled programmers and computer scientists. I'm not saying this out of spite, but because of how they've presented their agenda (I'm referring to Code.org, primarily). The sugar coating, the testimonials from everybody besides actual computer scientists and their setting of sex quotas and affirmative action to create the illusion of desiring equality.
Notice how they all focus on the code. They rarely even use the word "programming". This should already set off an alarm.
As the proprietary software giants are standing by this, they are very likely to focus on proprietary platforms. They don't talk about this, of course. It's all about the code. About imagination, creativity and dreams. Have fun fulfilling your dreams on a locked down tablet with a TPM chip. The issue of software freedom, I believe, is more important than bashing instructions, which is a skill anyone can pick up, if they so desire. But there will be none of that. How many of these kids will be taught about GNU? I'm assuming none. But I'm sure there's going to be lots of Visual Studio and C#, plus iOS and Objective-C.
Ultimately, this will either drive away children from programming (depending on how it's taught, but let's face it: compulsory schooling is notorious for just how apt it is at sucking the life and fun out of learning... even more when Code.org is pushing for pay deductions on teachers whose CS classrooms consist of <40% females), or it will reduce the general quality of labor. Many will be uninterested, many will refine their skills, but many will become 9-to-5 enterprise monkeys as a direct result of this.
I really want to support this. I do. But it really keeps looking like learning to code is just a facade. Of course, the children will learn something, but the ulterior agenda and how their perception will be skewed is something distressing.
- rayiner 13y agoI think you're quite missing the point. > Many will be uninterested, many will refine their skills, but many will become 9-to-5 enterprise monkeys as a direct result of this. The kids in the Chicago Public School system are 87% from low-income families. If these course result in "many" of these kids becoming 9-to-5 "enterprise monkeys" then that would be a smashing success beyond anyone's wildest imagination.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoThis doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable. The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory. Everything has trade-offs.
- rayiner 13y agoI know that $150k+ straight out of college is the norm on this board, but "unremarkable" "average coding jobs" are nonetheless a solid foundation for a middle class life. Just 1/3 that amount is enough to pull a family of four out of the "low-income" category, a category that encompasses the families of 87% of students in Chicago public schools.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. Being a "9-to-5 enterprise monkey" means having a job, and given the demographics of the pool here, if many get to that state as a result of this effort, its a big win. > There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable. And it would be great if Americans from low income backgrounds were able to get the skills to do them rather being dependent on kinds of physical labor that are easily automated -- which likely means unemployment. > The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory. I don't see how this follows. Making learning basic programming skills part of compulsory education might (though I don't see it necessary that it would) increase the number or proportion of people choosing to enter the programming profession that have a fairly low ceiling on how far they could go in the profession, but even if it did why would that be bad? Where is the evidence for any kind of dilution that really is a "natural consequence" of this being harmful in any way. > Everything has trade-offs. Its actually quite possible for some options to be strictly superior to others. But, sure, most real choices have some degree of trade-offs. But where is the argument -- not just the bare assertions -- that the trade-offs here aren't desirable?