7 ms·

> isn't four a little early to start programming? .. programming is important nowadays... but to put it on one level with reading, writing and arithmetic seems

> isn't four a little early to start programming? .. programming is important nowadays... but to put it on one level with reading, writing and arithmetic seems to me to be unwarranted. Can you elaborate? It's not clear to me why programming should necessarily be different. (especially if we can get at the essence of the skills it's a matter of, as opposed to seeing it as a matter of preparing people for jobs as programmers. One reason I say this is, as computing technology becomes more pervasive and mature, there ought to be broader scope for applying programming techniques, which mean that many more people will be using programming techniques in their work and day to day lives than just those working specifically as programmers).

veddox 11y ago
> Can you elaborate? Easy. First: name five jobs in which you absolutely do not need to be able to read or write. Found five? OK, can you name five in which you do not need to be able to program? What set took you longer to think of? Secondly, you cannot program without being able to read and write. (OK, KIBO makes do without, but I'm talking about serious programming here.) In a way, programming is a subclass of writing. Usually, you write in order to pass information on to humans, when you're programming, you're simply changing the intended recipient to a computer. My argument is that if writing is the superclass of programming, writing could reasonably be considered to be more important. > many more people will be using programming techniques in their work and day to day lives than just those working specifically as programmers While I would agree with this, we have to be careful not to fall victim to the programmer's bias. Yes, the need for programming skills in the world around us is big and growing rapidly, but it is probably not as big as we as programmers tend to believe, for two psychological reasons that skew our perspective: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - and if you have a programmer's mindset, you will tend to approach (almost) all problems as if they were software problems. That's just human nature. Mathematicians try to solve problems mathematically, carpenters look for a practical solution, etc. (There's a good TED talk on that, unfortunately, I can't find it right now.) But it does mean that we think about software solutions when in fact, another approach might actually be better. Apart from that, we also have a bias of association. As programmers we spend so much time with other computer people that we easily overestimate how many of us there are in the world - and thus, how important our occupation really is.
- jamesrcole 11y ago
  > name five jobs in which you absolutely do not need to be able to read or write. Found five? OK, can you name five in which you do not need to be able to program? What set took you longer to think of? of course that's the case now, but that doesn't mean it always will be. And also, the value (to the person, or society) in learning something is not IMO simply a matter of whether it will help you getting a job where you need to do that thing. > Secondly, you cannot program without being able to read and write. (OK, KIBO makes do without, but I'm talking about serious programming here. if we're talking about kids, then the requirement for "serious programming" doesn't apply. but in any case, I don't agree. I was responding to your earlier comment where you put reading, writing and arithmetic on the same level and programming should come after that. If you can't program until you can read and write then you can't do arithmetic until you can read and write -- i.e. i think that argument applies equally to maths and programming. Why can't you learn programming at the same time as reading and writing? Why can't it be part of learning those things? Just like reading books is part of them? > we have to be careful not to fall victim to the programmer's bias. Yes, the need for programming skills in the world around us is big and growing rapidly, but it is probably not as big as we as programmers tend to believe, for two psychological reasons that skew our perspective... have you heard the argument that "software is eating the world"? Yes there is the tendency for people to see "everything as a nail" but just stating that doesn't provide any actual argument against the notion that software, and the utility in being able to have programmatic control over the software, will be pervasive.

veddox 11y ago

> Can you elaborate? Easy. First: name five jobs in which you absolutely do not need to be able to read or write. Found five? OK, can you name five in which you do not need to be able to program? What set took you longer to think of? Secondly, you cannot program without being able to read and write. (OK, KIBO makes do without, but I'm talking about serious programming here.) In a way, programming is a subclass of writing. Usually, you write in order to pass information on to humans, when you're programming, you're simply changing the intended recipient to a computer. My argument is that if writing is the superclass of programming, writing could reasonably be considered to be more important. > many more people will be using programming techniques in their work and day to day lives than just those working specifically as programmers While I would agree with this, we have to be careful not to fall victim to the programmer's bias. Yes, the need for programming skills in the world around us is big and growing rapidly, but it is probably not as big as we as programmers tend to believe, for two psychological reasons that skew our perspective: If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - and if you have a programmer's mindset, you will tend to approach (almost) all problems as if they were software problems. That's just human nature. Mathematicians try to solve problems mathematically, carpenters look for a practical solution, etc. (There's a good TED talk on that, unfortunately, I can't find it right now.) But it does mean that we think about software solutions when in fact, another approach might actually be better. Apart from that, we also have a bias of association. As programmers we spend so much time with other computer people that we easily overestimate how many of us there are in the world - and thus, how important our occupation really is.

jamesrcole 11y ago
> name five jobs in which you absolutely do not need to be able to read or write. Found five? OK, can you name five in which you do not need to be able to program? What set took you longer to think of? of course that's the case now, but that doesn't mean it always will be. And also, the value (to the person, or society) in learning something is not IMO simply a matter of whether it will help you getting a job where you need to do that thing. > Secondly, you cannot program without being able to read and write. (OK, KIBO makes do without, but I'm talking about serious programming here. if we're talking about kids, then the requirement for "serious programming" doesn't apply. but in any case, I don't agree. I was responding to your earlier comment where you put reading, writing and arithmetic on the same level and programming should come after that. If you can't program until you can read and write then you can't do arithmetic until you can read and write -- i.e. i think that argument applies equally to maths and programming. Why can't you learn programming at the same time as reading and writing? Why can't it be part of learning those things? Just like reading books is part of them? > we have to be careful not to fall victim to the programmer's bias. Yes, the need for programming skills in the world around us is big and growing rapidly, but it is probably not as big as we as programmers tend to believe, for two psychological reasons that skew our perspective... have you heard the argument that "software is eating the world"? Yes there is the tendency for people to see "everything as a nail" but just stating that doesn't provide any actual argument against the notion that software, and the utility in being able to have programmatic control over the software, will be pervasive.