4 ms·

> a lot of badly-written toy programs. That's not necessarily true. On some panel about python, one of the participants who teaches python to science student

by hershel 12y ago

> a lot of badly-written toy programs. That's not necessarily true. On some panel about python, one of the participants who teaches python to science students said that after their relatively short amount of training, scientists can do useful stuff with python and that resonated well within the panel.

kimdouglasmason 12y ago
This is another example of a field where coding is relevant to the job. Many current scientific methods involve heavy use of computers for things like simulation, complex calculation, or control of custom built equipment. I still maintain there are many professions where coding is almost completely irrelevant. Some scientists use general purpose programming languages as part of their work. No (for example) physical therapist does this as part of their work. Many people on this board also seem to underestimate just how difficult it can be to learn to code for many people who have skills in other areas. People who are studying science are probably the type who are good at coding. If you want to see how difficult coding is for many, just look at the drop-out rates in Computer Science 1. The general argument that I am responding to is that coding is comparable to literacy. I argue that both in need and applicability, it simply is not. If you are illiterate, the number one thing you can generally do to improve your life is learn to read. I argue that unlike literacy, there are many professions where learning how to code provides less benefit than spending that effort learning or doing something else.
- hershel 12y ago
  I agree , but those same claims are true for many subjects learned at school, for example math.
- leot 12y ago
  Much of your thesis relies on the following: > If you are illiterate, the number one thing you can generally do to improve your life is learn to read. I agree that this certainly holds true today, since our culture now uses reading through and through. But in the history of our species, literacy is the weird exception, not the norm. For your argument to hold, it needs to have been true when only, say, 3% of the population could read and write (basically, a proportion comparable to today's proportion of people who "know how to code"). This graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png) suggests that the comparable era may be sometime around the medieval period, and it's not at all clear that your thesis would obviously hold true then, when other skills (hunting, barrel making, blacksmithing, etc.) would be far more immediately remunerative. When books are scarce, and few of one's peers are literate, being literate will do far less to improve one's life.

by hershel 12y ago

kimdouglasmason 12y ago

This is another example of a field where coding is relevant to the job. Many current scientific methods involve heavy use of computers for things like simulation, complex calculation, or control of custom built equipment. I still maintain there are many professions where coding is almost completely irrelevant. Some scientists use general purpose programming languages as part of their work. No (for example) physical therapist does this as part of their work. Many people on this board also seem to underestimate just how difficult it can be to learn to code for many people who have skills in other areas. People who are studying science are probably the type who are good at coding. If you want to see how difficult coding is for many, just look at the drop-out rates in Computer Science 1. The general argument that I am responding to is that coding is comparable to literacy. I argue that both in need and applicability, it simply is not. If you are illiterate, the number one thing you can generally do to improve your life is learn to read. I argue that unlike literacy, there are many professions where learning how to code provides less benefit than spending that effort learning or doing something else.

hershel 12y ago
I agree , but those same claims are true for many subjects learned at school, for example math.
leot 12y ago
Much of your thesis relies on the following: > If you are illiterate, the number one thing you can generally do to improve your life is learn to read. I agree that this certainly holds true today, since our culture now uses reading through and through. But in the history of our species, literacy is the weird exception, not the norm. For your argument to hold, it needs to have been true when only, say, 3% of the population could read and write (basically, a proportion comparable to today's proportion of people who "know how to code"). This graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illiteracy_france.png) suggests that the comparable era may be sometime around the medieval period, and it's not at all clear that your thesis would obviously hold true then, when other skills (hunting, barrel making, blacksmithing, etc.) would be far more immediately remunerative. When books are scarce, and few of one's peers are literate, being literate will do far less to improve one's life.