> 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 progr

> 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.