
Why Everyone Should Not Learn To Code - Martyr2
http://www.coderslexicon.com/why-everyone-should-not-learn-to-code/
======
dietrichepp
> We need passionate people who are creative and want to learn to DESIGN
> software in addition to coding.

We also need good workers who can scrape together the code to pipe data from
one application to another. We need sociologists and detectives who can
construct SQL queries. We need scientists and economists who can cobble
something together in R. We need physicists and engineers who know their way
around MATLAB or SciPy. We need drafters who can write simple LISP programs.
We need artists who can do a little bit of JavaScript when they need to.

These are not people who will always have a passion for programming, and they
won't always be producing products or thinking about design. The dream of the
fourth-generation programming language is dead, and the new dream is to teach
people a little bit about programming, even if it won't be their career or
their passion.

~~~
danso
I've worked with a lot of smart people in data-gathering fields (researchers,
journalists, analysts)...the amount of human-hours wasted on cleaning up data
that was compiled by someone who didn't understand delimiting, normalization,
or how operations can be repeated when we have a pattern (kind of like map-
reduce) is near tragic.

Think if you worked at a publishing house in which you had a fantastic story-
teller who was illiterate. This person could tell best-selling yarns, she just
needed someone to actually put it down on paper. And then re-read to her
outloud the sections (and entire chapters) when the material was edited and
re-arranged.

Yes, you could still produce best-selling books this way. But it's not
efficient. And the artist misses out on a lot of what could be done with more
direct contact with the written text...and the worst part is, she doesn't know
what she's missing out on.

edit: Note that I'm not saying that this hypothetical illiterate storyteller
has to be a _great_ writer (just like most people do not need to be excellent,
best-practices programmers). She just needs to be good enough to re-arrange
and re-read her own ideas and take a more active part in the editing process.
Believe it or not, in the publishing business, there are amazing storytellers
(or reporters) who are not very good writers.

~~~
dietrichepp
1\. Compare programming to home DIY. Sure, every year you'll have people who
knock down load-bearing walls, get pesticide backwash into the drinking water,
or turn a simple de-icing operation into a raging inferno. But people also
assemble millions of shelves and beds, unclog millions of drains, and build
thousands of greenhouses and planter boxes.

2\. Professional programmers create awful messes too. They do it less often,
but with greater consequences. Just like the contractors building a bridge are
less likely to screw up than some goofball installing a new water heater at
home, but a bad bridge is much more dangerous. Give people more training when
the potential consequences of bad work are more severe, and less training when
it's just not needed.

3\. The value of someone with both domain knowledge and programming knowledge
is usually immense. You can either teach a programmer about the domain, or you
can teach a domain expert how to program. If you have a programmer with a bit
of domain knowledge, then they know what kind of questions to ask the domain
experts. If you have a domain expert with a bit of programming knowledge, then
they know how to communicate technical requirements to a professional
programmer.

Let's take your analogy with the publishing house. If the fantastic
storyteller can write but has major problems with grammar and continuity, then
a good editor can clean things up.

------
kevin_morrill
Could not disagree more.

Just because you will not become a computer scientist or full time engineer
does not mean you won't have value in your life by understanding more about
how software and computing works.

All businessmen are not accountants, but you still take a basic financial
accounting class when you major in business. It teaches you the basics of how
things are organized and why certain things are measured the way they are.
Learning the basics of programming could serve the same purpose. Kids would
learn how to break problems in to algorithms and what sorts of things are even
possible with software, helping them gain an appreciation for why software
works the way it does. And unlike accounting and its relationship to business,
pretty much everyone in a first world country uses software throughout their
life often for several hours a day.

~~~
itsybaev
Basic accounting class is equal to the basic computer class. You'll learn just
very general things like "this is computer and here's what it does"

~~~
robbrown451
"Basic computer class" made sense when computers (including phones and
tablets) weren't as pervasive as they are now.

Now that almost everyone is using them, "basic programming class" is entirely
appropriate. As is "basic image editing" class, "basic spreadsheet use" class,
"basic computer aided drafting", etc.

I think learning a little coding is like learning a little algebra. Sure you
may not use it, but then again you may.

------
theonewolf
So to me personally, the movement’s purpose is _not_ to make software
engineers, or true coders, or even mediocre programmers, but rather to make
Computer Science a top-level subject in school systems alongside Biology,
Physics, Calculus, etc.

Just because you took high school Biology or Physics did not make you into a
Biologist or a Physicist. It merely introduced you to the most distilled and
complete parts of those fields and had no pretense of professional training or
a career choice.

In a similar manner, people are pushing for the most distilled parts of
Computer Science to enter school curricula. This would _not_ mean that after
that course you are a programmer, or a computer scientist, or even proficient
with computers.

People fail at Biology or Mathematics and have different aptitudes.

What it would mean, however, is that you are exposed to _computational
thinking_ [<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/>], an understanding perhaps that
somethings are computable and somethings are not, rudimentary programming
skills, and a different outlook on Computers in general.

Thus, people would no longer look at computers as purely black boxes and
magical, they would understand them a bit better and have a rudimentary
understanding of a field which affects almost everything in their life today.

We feel Physics and Biology and Chemistry and Calculus are important, why not
add Computer Science to the mix?

Do not confuse professional training with simple education.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Well, of course, I mean that's great. How are we doing at educating at
educating the masses in biology, mathematics, physics, etc? Not very good
right? So now, we're going to add more stuff. Why don't we add queuing theory,
that's important right? To me the movement is not clear; it's not as if you
can't learn programming school as it is now. I love programming but I just
don't understand what the goals are of the "code fever" movement are or even
when I do I think it is naive, at best.

Even that sort of crazy video with Zuckerberg and Gates literally made it out
to be that programming is easy and you don't have to be smart and then implied
that learning this stuff that is easy and doesn't require smarts will land you
a job at this places where you can skateboard in the office and futons and so
forth when they are the ones recruiting masters and phd students and asking
people how to move Mt. Fuji (ok ok I know that one is gone, just throwing it
out there. :) )

------
danilocampos
Software development is a lifestyle choice like literacy is a lifestyle
choice.

If you don't know how to read, you're still totally fine.

You just can't:

\- Communicate your thoughts

\- Learn new things

\- Understand warnings about dangerous conditions

\- Make more than a certain amount of money per year

\- Participate meaningfully in your government

etc.

As computers further saturate our existence, the divide between those who
truly understand their operation, maintenance and programming will produce
scary inequalities. Software solves a lot of problems. If you know how to
write it, you can solve problems faster and more efficiently than a person who
does not. Debugging is a problem solving framework with tremendous application
to all realms, not just tech. Those able to debug their technological lives
will find life a lot _cheaper_ than those who must pay others for the same.

Not everyone needs to be a professional software developer. But I posit that
everyone can benefit from knowing how to write software to direct the actions
of their computing device.

And regardless of our handwringing in one direction or another, it's going
that way anyway. Lots of people are pretty decent functional programmers in
their Excel spreadsheets. It'll grow organically from these sorts of tools and
frameworks.

But seeing the inevitable, I'd sure love to see more people taught computer
literacy – programming/scripting included – with the same mandatory nature as
language or math.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I could say the same thing about electrical engineering but I don't think you
would find that as interesting in argument; no one has ever really seriously
suggested, that has gotten as much press as "code fever" as regarding everyone
needing to learn about energy and electricity.

I submit those technologies pervade our culture much more than programming, as
well programming real computers that poeple use is only possible because of
the former. Why's programming so special in this sense? Because people can
whip together "yet another blog in RoR" YouTube videos but maybe
electromagnetism not so easy? I dunno.

In a funny way, it's like software "engineers" are putting their hands up and
saying "I give up. We don't know how to make software or user interfaces for
users to use in sensible way so we give up, now we think all our users need to
learn to program for us." It's kind of cute. :)

If you think a lot of people are pretty decent functional programmers in Excel
spreadsheets ... I wonder what you're definition of "a lot" is, I don't think
that's really true.

Given the state of pre-college education, I sort of feel like we're just
saying "math is hard, let's see if we can at least teach these kids dynamic
programming languages so they can at least make a simple blog engine instead."
It's like we're going to throw more stuff into a system that needs to be
reworked, anyway. The other side of it is like ... it's not as if kids are not
learning to program as it is. That's what is strange to me; most good/great
programmers I know started as kids with various socio-economic backgrounds.

------
n3rdy
This sounds as ridiculous as making the argument that everyone should not
learn to read.

Some people may feel like learning to read will make them more money, so these
people shouldn't learn to read, they will be wasting their time!

Some people may want to learn to read because they remember those awesome
bedtime stories, and would like to read them to themselves, these people are
wasting their time too because they just want to learn to read to escape
reality!

And so on...

Just because someone has one silly motivation to learn to read, doesn't mean
it will be a waste of time acquiring the skill, because it has many
applications beyond the original motivation.

Programming is the same thing, and since so many things rely on code, it may
be just as important in the future as knowing how to read.

At the very least, learning to code is empowering, and its hard to imagine
someone suffering negative consequences from learning this skill.

------
elliottcarlson
I won't become a plumber, but I will learn the basics of switching out the
flush valve when my current one is ever so slightly leaking gallons and
gallons of water. Anything bigger and I'll call a plumber. I also won't become
an electrician, but I know how to shut the breakers off so I can replace a
light fixture on my own as well. There is a benefit in having some knowledge
not only because it can help you in your day to day lives, but also you get a
greater knowledge of what it would take for you to need to have an expert
involved.

I take issue with the list of reasons when someone should probably look else
where; for the most part I think that the deterrent of the results from
attempting any of those will weed people out naturally - perhaps except for
the one looking for a quick buck. The one I have the biggest problem with is:
_Coding because you played a computer game once and want to make the next
Assassin’s Creed in a few days of work_

My niece wanted to learn how to make a game - she was 9. She thinks math, and
reading are "sciencey" (apparently the next generations term for nerdy). I got
her set up with a simple click and drag game builder that offers adding logic
in a kid friendly way. She started on it, got frustrated, asked me for help
and then continued. She still works on her game almost a year and a half
later. It's not her primary passion, and she won't probably won't become a
programmer - but it's a great teaching aide, and the knowledge of what it
takes to build something makes her appreciate the big name games she plays on
her various consoles.

I believe learning to code can open more peoples eyes to the possibilities out
there. Just because classes are available, or perhaps even mandatory in
school, doesn't mean that everyone taking those classes will become engineers
by trade.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I think there's a clear argument for computer literacy. That's a given. But
programming, I think that is a very separate issue. The code fever movement is
just a bit out there. It's one thing to say it's good to learn to code. It's
another thing to say "everyone needs to code" or "we should make a curriculum
about programming because we use software."

~~~
Martyr2
+1 - I think you have gotten the gist of my article. Believe me when I say
that I really do want to see more programmers out there cranking out great
software. I don't want to see a bunch of people with enough coding knowledge
to build a program, throw it into production without having any knowledge of
why the program works. An extreme example would be teaching everyone how to
use guns because the future is going to be full of gun violence. Leave guns to
those who are trained to carry and use them appropriately.

------
ebiester
Not everyone should be a software developer by trade.

However, learning to code, even a little bit, can make everyone just a bit
more effective. Even if that coding is in Excel and VBA. Especially if that
coding is in Excel and VBA.

~~~
civilian
Word! I hear about so many people that double their productivity once they can
script with excel.

My weapon of choice is <http://www.python-excel.org/>

------
russtyeh
What rubbish. Learning maths at school doesn't make everyone go on to become
mathematicians... it does however give people the tools to advance their
knowledge and productivity in other areas and give a more rounded education.

Hell, In my engineering degree we learn C/C++ and I have coursemates who still
can't craft a simple program. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

We should still give people the grounding and chance to learn in the same way
we do for maths/biology/art/whatever and we'll discover a lot of hidden
talent. It is not as if this will suddenly make Software Engineers ten a
penny.

------
tikhonj
I've always thought the main reason to "learn to code" is not immediately
practical, but rather the same as learning math or literature: it introduces a
new sort of thinking and expands your mind. Programming is essentially an
accessible form of logic, something missing from most people's educations
(including their math classes!).

Learning the mindset and the perspective is the most important thing. The
practical benefits are just a bonus. They do not have to be particularly
extensive.

------
shadowmint
The OP is confusing 'learning' with 'making'.

Have a good read of this linguistic relativity summary on Wikipedia
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity>).

The short version is: The concepts you have affect the way you think, and that
affects the way you behave.

We're not trying to get everyone to build software. That's a stupid idea. Most
people don't need to; sure, it's cool that you could do a macro or something
if you wanted to, but it's probably irrelevant to most people. Even with
modern high-level frameworks, it's a titanic effort to do anything practical
with programming.

...but the point is, logical flow, breaking down ideas into units, inter-
changable implementations of _anything_ that matching a common interface,
understanding how a 'source' document can be converted into an 'executable'
object that makes computers do things, creating a virtual 'model' of a real
situation and simulating it.... These are powerful ideas, that can't simply be
grasped by telling someone about them abstractly. You have to learn the
symbols and incorporate them into your own mental model.

More than that, they're tangible ideas that extend far beyond the bounds of
computers and into other domains, helping people organize and breakdown
problems.

The point is, you _should_ learn to code.

...maybe you'll never actually write a real program that you'll use to do
things, but _that doesn't matter_. By learning how to do it, you're gaining a
mental richness.

Failure to appreciate that, from an _educator_ appalls me.

------
ARama
This line stuck out to me: "Coding because you played a computer game once and
want to make the next Assassin’s Creed in a few days of work"

When I was 13, I decided that I wanted to stop playing games and try to make
my own. I was naive and thought that I could build one like WoW single
handedly and I soon realized that I couldn't. However I did then come across
private servers for games like World of Warcraft. From that I started to learn
how to run them, I started to learn about SQL to manage the DB, then moved
onto to learning LUA in order to script for my server. Even going onto looking
into C++. Even then moving onto learning about web development and web servers
in order to run the site for my server. That's what sparked my curiosity in
coding and development at a young age.

That's why I disagree with this statement. People will learn that they can't
build a game just like that, but they make start to take smaller steps and
learn themselves. Don't discourage people from trying. They actually have a
good mindset where they want to try build things themselves.

------
grepherder
Let me put it this way: I'm all for one person who's interested to learn
coding. Sure, if you wish, even let all this public campaigning and incentives
be there. I'm fine with it. I will help this hypothetical guy personally if he
comes my way. Nothing wrong here.

But... You (you, with the coding = literacy idea) are seriously overestimating
the masses. I'm not sure why, might be due to some bubble effect. I don't live
in SV or anything that resembles it. And my view is that even if you decide to
go with the coding = literacy analogy, you will run into trouble because most
people are not even literate beyond the absolute basics they can get away
with. I'm speaking about professionals, and even a certain "majority" of
college graduates. I'm speaking about a randomly sampled manager from a medium
sized enterprise. Ask this guy to write a single page essay about something he
knows about. I'm talking about writing, the kind of literacy we're talking
about in the coding = literacy analogy. If you are really in a bubble, you
might be surprised that only a minority of people living in the first world
can write coherently beyond the length of a twitter update or an SMS. So, I
would suggest to find another analogy for your public campaigning if you mean
learning coding as in learning to code beyond hello world or fizzbuzz.

Another problem: where are those magical people that want to increase
productivity? Most professionals I know don't even work most of the time! And
they want to get away with the absolute minimum that can still achieve the
maximum possible return. This is basic human behaviour. I don't endorse it,
and I don't say this is everyone's standart behaviour, so no need to take
offense, but I don't think anyone would argue against that what I posit here
holds for the majority. Now, you want these people to learn coding to increase
their productivity? Good luck. I'm sincerely all for it, and I will even help
in ways that I can, excuse my cynicism.

------
kaflurbaleen
wat.

That's like saying no one should learn to draw because they might draw better
than a "real" artist. Or no one should learn woodworking because they saw a
nice table once but they'll never fully understand it and they'll build shitty
things. I don't get the point of this article at all.

Coding is a craft! A really powerful, accessible, incredibly-sharable craft.

~~~
kaflurbaleen
P.S. I'm trying to figure out what learning-to-code resources adults who don't
yet code would be in to, or where you'd tell your non-programmer friends to
start if they expressed an interest.

Fill out this survey! <http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RCP98L5> Or write it out
in the comments!

~~~
dagw
The most important thing to teaching anyone to program, but especially someone
who already has a career and isn't looking to switch, is to make it relevant.
Find out what they do for living and what they do all day at work. Find out
what software they have to use and try to find a way to show them how they can
use a programming to make some task they are currently doing easier.

------
greghinch
Does learning how to replace the ball float valve on your toilet mean you're
going to be a plumber? Hardly. Is your life improved if you learn how to do it
yourself? Undoubtedly.

This article sounds like it was written by someone who's used to working
amongst groups of mediocre to poor developers, and thinks that educating
people will equate to legions of more mediocre developers.

Computers and code are a part of our lives now, and people should be educated
in the basics. Just like we have biology, physics, chemistry, and shop class,
a basic code class should be required for all young people.

------
austenallred
As someone for whom programming does not come naturally and is trying really,
really hard to get it, I disagree with the article.

I see coding in the 21st century how some people must have seen knowing how to
read in the 18th. I wonder if there was someone saying, "Why does everyone
need to know how to read? We won't all be writers and authors?"

I love the business side of things, and I don't think I'll ever be the
technical co-founder, but it certainly doesn't hurt to be able to speak the
same language and understand restrictions and limitations when you're trying
to build a product.

------
crazygringo
So, all the comments here seem to be disagreeing with the article. Now, I
certainly believe that business _managers_ could use a much more thorough
understanding of IT and development, with concepts of technical debt and the
like, although I'm not so sure that learning to actually code in practice
would help in that.

But trying to compare coding with literacy or basic plumbing is ridiculous.
Everyone's toilets break and can usually be fixed fairly easily, and everyone
derives direct benefit from knowing how to read.

But I can't possibly imagine what benefit my mother, or sister, or cousin,
would derive from knowing how to code. They don't want to do it for a living.
They don't want to run web sites. Their aren't any programs they need written,
that don't exist, that a single person could possibly create, that could even
be remotely worth their time to learn how to write, and then write, in
comparison with the other things they could be doing.

It would be about as useful to them as a law degree, or knowledge of sewage
treatment engineering. Computer coding is a tremendously useful and valuable,
but also tremendously esoteric skill.

And I just don't see how computer coding can somehow open your eyes to
understanding technology in a way that will deepen your life somehow. If there
are important lessons that people should be aware of (like the fragility of
code, the dangers of hacking and cyberwarfare, etc.), those are pretty easy to
teach without teaching coding itself.

------
lutusp
The linked article promotes one of the more common and misleading myths abut
computer programming -- that it lies in a domain separate from normal
behavior. That it is qualitatively different than ordinary computer use.

But in reality, people all lie on a spectrum between pathological innumeracy
on one extreme, and extreme programming skill on the other. Between the
extremes, we have:

* People who can accurately add a column of figures.

* People who can operate a calculator.

* People who can efficiently use a spreadsheet application.

* People who can write an efficient spreadsheet "program" by filling cells with the right functions to solve various practical problems of increasing complexity.

* People who can write Word or Excel (or LibreOffice) macros to solve certain kinds of problems.

* People willing to write small programs in easily accessible application languages like Visual Basic and similar languages integrated into end-user applications.

* People who write computer programs for their own use.

* People who write computer programs for others to use.

The above list isn't exhaustive -- it's only means to dispel the idea that
there are "programmers" and mortals, located in separate categories. This is
nonsense. The faulty thinking behind this myth will become more obvious as we
become more accustomed to the presence of computers in our lives, and as
computers, and computer languages, mature.

------
viveutvivas
Let's start with everyone learning some math, first. Particularly probability
& statistics.

~~~
christiangenco
Learn math through coding. See an immediate practical use for all those trig
functions while coding your fun game.

¿Porque no los dos?

~~~
dinkumthinkum
But we're being a little silly here right. How about everyone learning basic
algebera before we get to trig for your fun game. Believe, coding a game
sounds fun to us programmers, it might sound fun in _theory_ to others, but it
is not fun in _reality_ to others.

------
arxanas
The title is not the same as "Why Not Everyone Should Learn To Code". I
strongly disagree with the title.

As for the article I don't think that the reasons cited are particularly
strong.

Buggy code is not a reason not to code. Though people who often write buggy
code should know their limitations.

Programming is not as unlikely to occur as rocket science or lawyering. People
take physics and government as classes and in the same manner I don't see why
programming should not be an equally basic subject.

The easy-programming reasons are not things that disqualify you from being a
programmer. All programmers would like to do those things. It is merely the
actual programmers that have gone ahead and learned things the hard way.

I don't think programming classes would create a huge influx of programmers
vying for jobs as depicted any more than math classes have created a surplus
of mathematicians or biology classes have left us drowning in biologists.

------
john_whelan
If this was in response to the code.com video, I think this author missed the
message of it. Code.com said that people should learn to code because it makes
people think more analytically. Just like why people take math classes. Do I
need to know calculus in everyday life? Probably not, but it changes how you
think and makes you a problem solver, just like learning how to program. Also,
if people learned programming than they wouldn't be typing into magic they
wouldn't understand, maybe they start to code because they like video games
and discover other uses for programming? How will people become passionate
about it if they never try it out? This artical made my angry and could apply
to and subject.

------
riggins
I agree with the article. It articulated some thoughts that I've been having.

There are bunch of comments that essentially say 'even a little code will make
you better'. It's that claim that I would disagree with and why I don't think
everyone should learn to code.

My belief is you actually need to achieve a fair degree of proficiency to be
able to produce useful stuff with a computer. So to the extent people are
learning to code but aren't going to reach the level a proficiency that's
truly useful, I'm not sure its an optimal use of time.

EDIT: I would add that I do think CS should be taught starting in KG. That way
everyone would be reaching a level of proficiency that's useful.

------
fatboy
Whilst I agree that it would be silly to say that everyone should be a
software engineer, an understanding of how basic programming works would be a
benefit to many people in many varying fields.

I became interested in programming through scripting Adobe InDesign. In this
type of area, it's really amazing what a little bit of programming knowledge
can achieve. Our technical books now contain far fewer inaccuracies because
they are tested by the computer, and index-compilation tasks that used to take
days by hand are done on command.

Programming is cool, and I like that people talk about demystifying it a bit.

------
tlrobinson
Everyone should try to learn to code (and write). Not everyone should become a
programmer (or writer). There's a big difference, and I don't think anyone
ever suggests the latter.

------
demian
Everybody should learn to code, in the same way everybody should learn
physics. It's basic cultural and scientific knowledge.

But that doesn't mean everybody should be a Mechanical Engineer.

------
duggieawesome
I support the 'Learn to Code' trend, insofar that programming has the ability
to empower people. e.g. Being able to automate a tedious boring or building
your own blog is an amazing feeling that I do believe today's youth/generation
ought to experience.

Overall, I think that the minority of programmers who are afraid of the wave
of poor-programmers seeping into the field shouldn't hinder the coding
movement.

~~~
yogo
I like the trend too, particularly in the sense that everyone should learn
about programming in the same way that everyone should learn math and how to
read/write. Not everyone goes on to become an author and I won't expect
everyone to go on to be professional programmers. I think the push back
against this trend is due to the uncertainty surrounding how a movement like
this will change the industry. Like you said it will empower people and I
think one of the ways this can change things, in a good way, is by allowing
services to be centered more around APIs so that everyone can build and
customize tools the exact way they like.

Take for example todo list software, there will always be many offerings
because everyone has a certain way they like to go about it. If you can
program then you can customize the experience for your particular case while
the data (the key resource being shared in the case of teams) remains the
same. It's also very similar to putting together your own macros in many
programs... just taken a bit further.

------
christiangenco
I echoed a lot of the counterpoints being brought up here in my TEDx talk last
year, "You should learn to program": [http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/You-
Should-Learn-to-Program-C...](http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/You-Should-Learn-
to-Program-Chr)

------
5partan
Code.org aims to reach students and kids which have no clue about programming.
Does it really matter what motivates you? If you love it you love it. If you
hate it you hate it. And sometimes you change your mind.

------
itsybaev
There should be a specialization: some people are specialized in coding,
others - in something else. A group of specialists together is better than a
group of those who can do several things just not too bad.

~~~
kolinko
have you ever worked on a real project?

In some places specialists are quite nice, but in most situations, there is
nothing worse than a person who says "oh, I won't touch that, I only deal with
X".

~~~
itsybaev
well.. I've worked in Exxon Mobil for a while, now own a successful business
and also CEO in a startup. Your point of view is acceptable for some small
companies and startups, but if the company goes bigger, everyone just can't do
everything, it's a chaos and loss of concentration.

------
mehdim
To answer the article, learning what will not be our everyday job is called
"curiosity, knowledge and culture" If we keep going it will be a skill.

------
dguaraglia
Ugh, I know it's nitpicking but the correct phrasing is: "Why Not Everyone
Should Learn To Code". It's not that difficult, is it?

------
tomrod
What should everyone do instead? And who will then write code if no one
learns?

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I suppose they could learn about strawmen and logical arguments. :) Actually,
that would probably make a lot of things better than programming!

------
carbocation
%s/code/write/g

~~~
christiangenco
Precisely.

------
chrismacho
Fucking THANK YOU.

