3 ms·

With the media coverage of code.org, Leo the Homeless Coder, and the code schools and bootcamps springing up everywhere, the message the general public is getti

With the media coverage of code.org, Leo the Homeless Coder, and the code schools and bootcamps springing up everywhere, the message the general public is getting is that whatever "coding" is and whatever "coders" do doesn't really take a whole lot of skill or effort. If anyone can apparently do it with a few weeks of training, why should they be paid $80-100+k? Either coders=programmers and we should expect increasing competition and decreasing wages, or self-described programmers need to somehow distinguish themselves from the unskilled "coder" masses. Yet in these very comments, every response I've seen is essentially endorsing the "coding is easy and anyone can do it" message. It's strange to see so many otherwise intelligent people advocating for their own marginalization. Doctors would never say things like "everyone should learn medicine" or "anyone can be a doctor." Instead they erect barriers to entry to eliminate competition and force you to pay for their services, driving up the cost of health care, and the stupid general public loves them for it. What is wrong with programmers? Are we simply too egalitarian for our own good?

zedshaw 13y ago
No, this isn't really the case. What I see, as the guy who wrote the book that tells people that learning to code is hard but possible, what people are realizing is that programming is hard, but possible. Programmers are simply confusing the fact that people are attempting to learn it and succeeding in greater numbers than before with the idea that all these new entrants all think it's easy. The truth is I see them all say it's damn hard, but if they put the work in they can learn it. Another thing they realize after getting through my book is just how long it'll take to get good. They don't take what they've learned lightly, and they don't think it was trivial to learn. What this ends up doing is giving everyone who attempted it a healthy dose of respect for what we do. I'm a coder. I've been a coder a huge chunk of my life. This attempt to label "coder" as some kind of idiot is really pissing me off, especially when I see it coming from programmers who don't realize that more people learning an introduction to code means more people will appreciate and understand what they do. Now, the site is down so I haven't read the article, so take my comment as only replying to what you said, not the article.
- longtimeranon 13y ago
  > I'm a coder. I've been a coder a huge chunk of my life. This attempt to label "coder" as some kind of idiot is really pissing me off, If you want to call yourself a coder, fine. However, there is still a difference between Linus Torvalds and someone who, for example, has at most hacked a few things together in JavaScript, and I think the terminology should reflect that in more ways than just "beginner" and "expert." I also think calling ourselves "coders" and calling what we do "coding" isn't going to gain us the respect or prestige that terms like "software developer" or even "programmer" would. If you're happy being called a "coder," in the sense of "Zed Shaw is a great coder," that's fine, but personally, I'm not. > Now, the site is down so I haven't read the article It was down for me too. I was responding to the comments that seemed to take great offense at the apparently horrible, elitist idea that maybe, just maybe, it might be worthwhile to have a term that distinguishes professional developers from people who've done some exercises on code.org.
- cafard 13y ago
  Indeed. A little out of reach from where is sit is Jon Bentley's More Programming Pearls: Confessions of a Coder. Bentley certainly did not take it as derogatory term.
jamestomasino 13y ago
First, the terms don't mean different things, despite the authors intention to make it so. Second, the idea he presents as coder is actually a basic operation done by programmers at many different levels. A good analogy would be to liken it to a carpenter hammering nails. A good carpenter might spend many hours planning a project on paper, but at some point someone has to hammer the nails. It might be him, it might be an apprentice (read: junior programmer). Finally, I may be reading the comments in a different light than you, but I don't think anyone is using this forum to claim that programming, or even "coding", is an easy task. It is a skill that takes training and practice. As you get more skilled, you might find yourself doing less of the implementation or not, depending on your career. However, it is exactly that experience and increased skill that warrants the high salary. You wouldn't pay an apprentice carpenter a lot of money for those cabinets, but for a master...
grey-area 13y ago
If anyone can apparently do it with a few weeks of training, why should they be paid $80-100+k? For certain values of do it. Doctors would never say things like "everyone should learn medicine" or "anyone can be a doctor." Instead they erect barriers to entry to eliminate competition and force you to pay for their services, driving up the cost of health care, and the stupid general public loves them for it. Doctors, like real Architects (i.e. not software or information ones!), and real Engineers, are a regulated and certified profession because when they make mistakes, someone dies, not because it is an economic advantage for them to be so. What you are describing is something more akin to the guilds system for craftsmen, which is not something I think you should aspire to or want to return to. I imagine some part of software production will become codified and regulated in the same way in time - that part which deals with life or death situations or produces medical equipment for example. As software grows to eat the world this might start to encompass more of the profession, but probably there will always be a large area of software which just doesn't matter enough to be codified and regulated (I'd include in that most of the work that companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, and web startups do - advertising or most websites can lose money when they go down, but it doesn't risk lives). I'm sure you can think of a case where software risks lives, but the vast majority does not. So I don't think this comparison is helpful. As to driving up the cost of healthcare, try comparing countries and you'll see costs are more related to the system of insurance and breadth of coverage than how much doctors are paid. What is wrong with programmers? Are we simply too egalitarian for our own good? Perhaps it is enlightened self-interest. The more people who know how useful software can be (if only in a small way), the more willing they will be to commission it. Monopolies of knowledge are easily undermined anyway, and why not try to improve the lives of others in a small way by encouraging them to automate filling in their spreadsheet or other daily tasks with a little scripting for example? If you have sufficient experience or talent, lots of other people learning to code/program/engineer/whatever label you prefer should be the last of your concerns.
- longtimeranon 13y ago
  This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about! Doctors in the US are the highest paid in the world because of protectionist laws that don't allow foreign doctors to practice (no H-1B competition), that prevent new medical schools from opening, and that make them the only legal source of many health services like prescriptions (in many states), and yet people like you continue to defend them: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/20/doctors_pay_under_obamacare_cut_the_whining.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/20/doctors_pay_u... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/what-liberals-get-wrong-about-single-payer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/w... http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/19/nurse_practitioners_the_easiest_way_to_expand_access_to_health_care_is_out.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/19/nurse_practit...

zedshaw 13y ago

No, this isn't really the case. What I see, as the guy who wrote the book that tells people that learning to code is hard but possible, what people are realizing is that programming is hard, but possible. Programmers are simply confusing the fact that people are attempting to learn it and succeeding in greater numbers than before with the idea that all these new entrants all think it's easy. The truth is I see them all say it's damn hard, but if they put the work in they can learn it. Another thing they realize after getting through my book is just how long it'll take to get good. They don't take what they've learned lightly, and they don't think it was trivial to learn. What this ends up doing is giving everyone who attempted it a healthy dose of respect for what we do. I'm a coder. I've been a coder a huge chunk of my life. This attempt to label "coder" as some kind of idiot is really pissing me off, especially when I see it coming from programmers who don't realize that more people learning an introduction to code means more people will appreciate and understand what they do. Now, the site is down so I haven't read the article, so take my comment as only replying to what you said, not the article.

longtimeranon 13y ago
> I'm a coder. I've been a coder a huge chunk of my life. This attempt to label "coder" as some kind of idiot is really pissing me off, If you want to call yourself a coder, fine. However, there is still a difference between Linus Torvalds and someone who, for example, has at most hacked a few things together in JavaScript, and I think the terminology should reflect that in more ways than just "beginner" and "expert." I also think calling ourselves "coders" and calling what we do "coding" isn't going to gain us the respect or prestige that terms like "software developer" or even "programmer" would. If you're happy being called a "coder," in the sense of "Zed Shaw is a great coder," that's fine, but personally, I'm not. > Now, the site is down so I haven't read the article It was down for me too. I was responding to the comments that seemed to take great offense at the apparently horrible, elitist idea that maybe, just maybe, it might be worthwhile to have a term that distinguishes professional developers from people who've done some exercises on code.org.
cafard 13y ago
Indeed. A little out of reach from where is sit is Jon Bentley's More Programming Pearls: Confessions of a Coder. Bentley certainly did not take it as derogatory term.

jamestomasino 13y ago

First, the terms don't mean different things, despite the authors intention to make it so. Second, the idea he presents as coder is actually a basic operation done by programmers at many different levels. A good analogy would be to liken it to a carpenter hammering nails. A good carpenter might spend many hours planning a project on paper, but at some point someone has to hammer the nails. It might be him, it might be an apprentice (read: junior programmer). Finally, I may be reading the comments in a different light than you, but I don't think anyone is using this forum to claim that programming, or even "coding", is an easy task. It is a skill that takes training and practice. As you get more skilled, you might find yourself doing less of the implementation or not, depending on your career. However, it is exactly that experience and increased skill that warrants the high salary. You wouldn't pay an apprentice carpenter a lot of money for those cabinets, but for a master...

grey-area 13y ago

If anyone can apparently do it with a few weeks of training, why should they be paid $80-100+k? For certain values of do it. Doctors would never say things like "everyone should learn medicine" or "anyone can be a doctor." Instead they erect barriers to entry to eliminate competition and force you to pay for their services, driving up the cost of health care, and the stupid general public loves them for it. Doctors, like real Architects (i.e. not software or information ones!), and real Engineers, are a regulated and certified profession because when they make mistakes, someone dies, not because it is an economic advantage for them to be so. What you are describing is something more akin to the guilds system for craftsmen, which is not something I think you should aspire to or want to return to. I imagine some part of software production will become codified and regulated in the same way in time - that part which deals with life or death situations or produces medical equipment for example. As software grows to eat the world this might start to encompass more of the profession, but probably there will always be a large area of software which just doesn't matter enough to be codified and regulated (I'd include in that most of the work that companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, and web startups do - advertising or most websites can lose money when they go down, but it doesn't risk lives). I'm sure you can think of a case where software risks lives, but the vast majority does not. So I don't think this comparison is helpful. As to driving up the cost of healthcare, try comparing countries and you'll see costs are more related to the system of insurance and breadth of coverage than how much doctors are paid. What is wrong with programmers? Are we simply too egalitarian for our own good? Perhaps it is enlightened self-interest. The more people who know how useful software can be (if only in a small way), the more willing they will be to commission it. Monopolies of knowledge are easily undermined anyway, and why not try to improve the lives of others in a small way by encouraging them to automate filling in their spreadsheet or other daily tasks with a little scripting for example? If you have sufficient experience or talent, lots of other people learning to code/program/engineer/whatever label you prefer should be the last of your concerns.

longtimeranon 13y ago
This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about! Doctors in the US are the highest paid in the world because of protectionist laws that don't allow foreign doctors to practice (no H-1B competition), that prevent new medical schools from opening, and that make them the only legal source of many health services like prescriptions (in many states), and yet people like you continue to defend them: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/20/doctors_pay_under_obamacare_cut_the_whining.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/20/doctors_pay_u... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/what-liberals-get-wrong-about-single-payer/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/13/w... http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/19/nurse_practitioners_the_easiest_way_to_expand_access_to_health_care_is_out.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/19/nurse_practit...