3 ms·

I compare coding with making music. You can teach everybody to make music, but most people are to shy to begin. Learning to make music requires lots of boring p

by kephra 12y ago

I compare coding with making music. You can teach everybody to make music, but most people are to shy to begin. Learning to make music requires lots of boring practice. Lot of people fail after a few month of guitar lessons as a kid. But then there are those manic musicians. A real musician must play everyday, regardless if he has audience, if he gets payed, if it sounds good to anybody but him. A real musician is manic and becomes depressive, if unable to make music. Some of them become great musicians. Its the same with coding. Most people are to shy to try even. Lots of people fail to get traction. Only a few become manic, and of those a some become great coders.

partition 12y ago
That's right on with "too shy". The issues of pedagogy whether it is music or programming are largely sociological. So why not make being a manic musician attractive and marketable like they do in movies about music? I guarantee you that the core inspiration that starts (and to a large extent sustains) any involvement in any activity is aesthetic. This makes aesthetics the beginning and end of activities. But in programming, we just use the manic people as Golden Children to somehow whip the other students into shape. This utterly fails of course, aesthetically and practically and in every other way imaginable. It's an ugly way of doing things and it doesn't actually produce good programmers.
peterfirefly 12y ago
> You can teach everybody to make music Probably not.
- zimpenfish 12y ago
  I guess it depends if you read "make" as "create" vs "play". The latter is more likely (but I'd still dispute it.)
cubano 12y ago
I've been using the analogy for 30 years now. I've taught both programming and guitar over the years, and in the end, those that endure the frustrations and loneliness of learning, because of whatever-inner-drive, have become successful, although it would seem that in this context, the word "successful" is perhaps fairly arbitrary, which also may be at issue here. It really isn't much more complicated then that. I just cannot see any shortcut in learning to play guitar besides actually playing an hour a day, with very sore fingertips and sounding like crap, for months, although, of course, my encouragement and beginner-level instruction in how to play "Seven Nation Army" and "Brain Stew" is, at some level, probably sort of helpful. Same with learning Python/C/JS/etc. I have always loved the term grok as a wonderful descriptor of gaining these type of skills and knowledge, as it captures the essence of the idea almost perfectly. [edits]
- kephra 12y ago
  > Same with learning Python. A language is like an instrument, once you know one, learning the next will be much easier, because you already know about rhythm and harmonics. Each new instrument, even a new guitar, is a ear opener, as it forces one to play different, to learn fresh. Same with programming languages. Learning a new language becomes trivial after the first dozen. But each new one widens the way one see code.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by kephra 12y ago

partition 12y ago

That's right on with "too shy". The issues of pedagogy whether it is music or programming are largely sociological. So why not make being a manic musician attractive and marketable like they do in movies about music? I guarantee you that the core inspiration that starts (and to a large extent sustains) any involvement in any activity is aesthetic. This makes aesthetics the beginning and end of activities. But in programming, we just use the manic people as Golden Children to somehow whip the other students into shape. This utterly fails of course, aesthetically and practically and in every other way imaginable. It's an ugly way of doing things and it doesn't actually produce good programmers.

peterfirefly 12y ago

> You can teach everybody to make music Probably not.

zimpenfish 12y ago
I guess it depends if you read "make" as "create" vs "play". The latter is more likely (but I'd still dispute it.)

cubano 12y ago

I've been using the analogy for 30 years now. I've taught both programming and guitar over the years, and in the end, those that endure the frustrations and loneliness of learning, because of whatever-inner-drive, have become successful, although it would seem that in this context, the word "successful" is perhaps fairly arbitrary, which also may be at issue here. It really isn't much more complicated then that. I just cannot see any shortcut in learning to play guitar besides actually playing an hour a day, with very sore fingertips and sounding like crap, for months, although, of course, my encouragement and beginner-level instruction in how to play "Seven Nation Army" and "Brain Stew" is, at some level, probably sort of helpful. Same with learning Python/C/JS/etc. I have always loved the term grok as a wonderful descriptor of gaining these type of skills and knowledge, as it captures the essence of the idea almost perfectly. [edits]

kephra 12y ago
> Same with learning Python. A language is like an instrument, once you know one, learning the next will be much easier, because you already know about rhythm and harmonics. Each new instrument, even a new guitar, is a ear opener, as it forces one to play different, to learn fresh. Same with programming languages. Learning a new language becomes trivial after the first dozen. But each new one widens the way one see code.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]