

Could Coding Become the Next Mass Profession? - zds
http://also.roybahat.com/post/15307941431/could-coding-be-the-next-mass-profession

======
Nitramp
Citation missing, but I've read a paper that claimed rather convincingly that
you need a certain mindset both to be good at programming and to enjoy
programming (unsurprisingly, this comes hand in hand).

It's not really problem solving, it's rather a specific kind of structured
thinking. It's the attention to detail and the will to think through every
aspect of an issue, to find a complete solution. That's also a useful skill
outside of software or even engineering (I'd imagine law isn't all that
different in that regard), but apparently it's really critical for software
engineering. At the same time it's not necessarily linked to general
intelligence or problem solving ability or creative thinking, it's just a
particular way of approaching problems.

Said lost article had tests showing that only a small fraction of the
population thinks this way, something below 10%.

Of course this isn't proven, but it matches with my personal experience. This
always makes me very skeptical of things like end user programming, or
programming as a mass profession. People without the skill can create
programs, in particular in environments, but the results are usually quite
fragile and expensive to maintain. "Real" programmers can usually create much
greater value at lower cost, so there really isn't much of a point in
employing lots of "not really" programmers.

~~~
stevecooperorg
I agree with you: what we think of as 'pro' programming -- writing large
programs in formal languages and running it past an interpreter/compiler -- is
probably only something the few will really get into.

However, there's a couple of exceptions to this idea I'm not sure how to
handle.

 _MS EXCEL_ : It's a programming experience, of a sort, and is incredibly
popular. I think it uses similar skills to writing code, but is just much more
'gentle' on the brain. There's a programming nature in excel formulae;

    
    
        =SUM(A3:A14) / COUNT(A3:A14)
    

if you see what I mean...

 _BASIC_ : Back in the 80's, everyone and his dog had a go at BASIC
programming. Most of my friends and their dads got their hands dirty typing in
programs from magazines. It suggests that getting lots of people involved in
simple languages might be feasible.

~~~
jashmenn
Yes exactly! There have been times in history (pre-printing-press) where most
people couldn't even read. I'm sure there where many scribes who would look
down their noses and say that the common man would never take the time to read
for himself.

Our society has grown to be incredibly complex. Imagine taking your great-
great-great-great-great-grandfather and dropping him in modern times today and
asking him to fill out the forms to get a drivers license, prepare his own
taxes, set the clock on your dvd player, or send an email on an iPhone.

I guess my point is that the "common" man is pretty capable of feats that
would be considered extremely technical from a historic vantage point.

~~~
mistercheese
I was also about the use writing and reading as an example of knowledge that
used to be limited to just specialized roles. While there are still
professions that deal exclusively with writing exceptionally well, it's now
part of our basic education. I think in a similar way, computer literacy could
be just a matter of education.

~~~
GoldenMonkey
yes, but we get 12+ years of reading and writing education.

~~~
mistercheese
I believe we could really start teaching code at a relatively young age too,
or at least start teaching them the ability to have the mindset for
programming.

------
dasil003
It's an interesting question how much of the population is really capable of
becoming productive coders in a professional setting. Certainly we already
have a wide class of coders doing things like advanced Excel spreadsheets
which require much of the critical thinking required to write general-purpose
code, but even there you find that there is a distinct subset of people who
really grok it and break through the next level of creative problem-solving
ability.

I would argue that unless you can break through that wall where you have the
tenacity, will and base knowledge to debug anything that is thrown your way,
you will not be employable professionally as a coder because inevitably you
will get hung up on something. I'm not sure the obvious outward computer-geek
level passion is required, but I certainly think you need a real sense of
satisfaction with the problem solving aspect of the job. How much of the
population possesses that? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing far less than half.

My prediction instead is that hackers will continue hacking until we achieve
artificial intelligence, and then computers themselves will do the heavy
lifting and we can all be creative directors. At that point we will have to
contend with far more difficult existential issues such as how to structure
society and happiness for a species that is evolved from a difficult struggle
for survival in a world where automation accounts for every physical need.
Maybe philosophy will be the next mass profession.

------
kls
I think the piece is overly optimistic about the prospects of coding becoming
common place. We have dealt with the software crisis since the inception of
software and up till now, no one has proposed an even half way plausible plan
on how to address it. As such until someone solve the software crisis in a
measurable way that can improve the quality and predictability of code. It
will remain a craft, as such only the most skilled craftsmen will be of real
value, with the less skill providing solutions that are far more expensive to
maintain.

As well the for the majority of the population, writing software is just not
attractive it's what technical minded people do, which is 10% of the
population at best. Couple that with the fact that the industry up until now
has not been that attractive to females and you start to see that there are a
bunch of technical and cultural issue working against coding becoming the next
mass profession.

The majority of people look at a logic puzzle and see frustration, they don't
see a challenge that is interesting to solve. The minority that do, have the
spark that is needed to code. Figure out how to give everyone that spark, and
you may have a flame, but you still have to deal with all the other issues
once you get the fire going.

~~~
agscala
I agree, and also I'd like to add something. While it's not really an
attractive job to many people, it's also relatively difficult for most people.
Farming is different in that it's easy for anyone to do (it's just manual
labor). Realistically, you can't expect a large portion of the population to
be capable of programming.

~~~
randomdata
> Farming is different in that it's easy for anyone to do (it's just manual
> labor).

I have a small grain farm and also develop software professionally. I find
software development is the easier of the two, personally.

Problems in software all go back to the rules of computational theory. It's
not exactly easy, but the space is fairly limited and can be understood with
some effort.

Problems in farming are all over the map. Sometimes you have to engineer a new
piece of equipment to get you out of a jam, other times you're dealing with
biology, medicine, mechanical work, sales, you name it, you probably have to
deal with it. And you need a solution _now_. By tomorrow, your profits for the
year will be gone.

~~~
kls
I grew up on a citrus farm in Florida, I was the first generation to leave the
far after NAFTA due to the fact that we could no longer compete as a family
farm. While Farming has a lot of variables that cannot be controlled and is
grueling work, I did not find it to be any more mentally difficult than
development. There is a lot of science in farming for sure, but one thing
about farming that is very different than software development is that only
one person needs to do the thinking and can then delegate to less inclined
individuals. The structure of the workforce is different in that a single
thinker can do the processing for a group, in software there is no such
luxury, if I do all the thinking for another developer then I might as well
take the 10 minutes to write it down and save the salary of the other
developer. That's the big difference, roles can be delegated in some
professions, in others they just cant. To some extent they can be in software,
you can have a test developer, and a build manager but for the most part each
one is working out specific, unique problems in their domain.

~~~
randomdata
> but one thing about farming that is very different than software development
> is that only one person needs to do the thinking and can then delegate to
> less inclined individuals

True, although, technically speaking, that work still exists. The programmer
just delegates it to the computer instead of having people do it. There is no
reason why you couldn't have an assembly line of humans hand-compiling your
programs, if you really wanted to. Once you give them the basic rules, they
can set forth and complete any task that you ask of them. It is just
repetition at that point.

Farming is quickly going in the same direction. The delegatable jobs are, more
and more, being done by machines.

------
moocow01
I think the shortage of software development skills really has to do with the
lack of there being enough people who get impassioned with this kind of stuff.
When I step out of my bubble I realize that its really difficult to find
cultural-personality fits for what building software requires. Most people are
just not like 'us' for better or worse. Most people don't get giddy over
implementing a new algorithm or building an elegant framework, etc. etc. and
probably never will.

Here is an exercise... flip the table and think if our industry was going away
and you needed to find a job in a completely new industry/job role. Personally
for me about 95% of the things I can think of make me want to immediately
throw up... sales, medicine, advertising, law etc. - no thanks they are just
not me. I've known people who have transitioned into tech from other
industries chasing the money here... they are usually gone within a year or 2.

The other problem is despite all the crap about "I learned to code in 2
months" it is a really long haul to become good. Probably similar to becoming
a good author or painter.

Lastly, it is quite well known that _some_ people in software can have a lot
of economic problems as they get older not to mention some of the cultural
problems in tech in certain places that have been well covered here. I guess
the point being that I think its really really difficult to do software
development if your not genuinely excited about doing the day-to-day stuff.

~~~
kenjackson
_I think the shortage of software development skills really has to do with the
lack of there being enough people who get impassioned with this kind of
stuff._

I was at a party recently I was asking someone about their work. I was really
interested in how they solved certain problems, etc... We were probably only
talking a minute or so when she says, "Can we not talk about my job and ask me
about my car or some great meal I've had?" So I apologized and we talked about
other things.

But it did get me thinking that at a random party I'd be happy to talk about
my job/industry/etc... While I have a lot of interests, I don't think I've
ever thought, "I'm tired of talking about programming or technology". Usually
when I stop talking about it, it's for the sake of those around me :-)

~~~
FuzzyDunlop
I think you can look at this another way too. How many people in other
industries voluntarily embark on pet projects or hobbyist experiments that
involve the same things they do at work?

How many people in other industries blog about their profession in their own
time? And not just about their day to day, but about new things they've found
or interesting things they've figured out.

People want to go home and leave work at the office, but it's not at all
uncommon for a programmer or developer to carry on in their spare time,
working on their own stuff. You probably started off your career as a hobby in
the first place.

Sometimes it can be hard to switch off when plenty of other people manage it
fine. It seems almost implausible to imagine a fellow colleague who wasn't
interested. I also think that specialist journalism is another profession that
almost expects 'extra-curricular' interest in the field.

~~~
the-cakeboss
>How many people in other industries voluntarily embark on pet projects or
hobbyist experiments that involve the same things they do at work?

Well this behavior isn't limited to those involved with software development.
I'd say that this is the case for any profession that involves the formulation
and then creation of content, ideas, products etc.

Take this guy for example:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/the_be...](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/the_best_american_wall_map_david_imus_the_essential_geography_of_the_united_states_of_america_.html)

A lot of other fields necessitate a customer in order to perform, such as
medicine.

------
digitailor
"Better, because writing code is a creative act which can be done with or
without a traditional (antiquated?) office-based job, and can create enormous
personal and economic value."

This article emphasizes _making_ , which I think is important. It reminds me
of my great-grandfather, who came to the US from Poland and started a clothing
manufacturing business (that still exists to this day). I learned to make
custom-tailored clothing by being in the business.

There was an opportunity back then for anyone willing to learn to make
something and sell it. There simply aren't too many of these kind of
opportunities today. Coding is definitely one of them. All I have learned from
tailoring- the act of making something from scratch- has helped me as a
developer. And vice versa.

"Most academic training is focused on teaching students theory, not practice."

The maker type of entrepreneurship requires a practical, work-based education,
and college doesn't always provide for that. You learn to make by doing. It's
circular: You learn to make by making. The resources for learning to code are
readily available, and anyone willing to start making their own projects can
teach themselves.

Another thing school can't teach you is _what_ to make. This is where learning
to code comes in: if you have experience with something else, you can code
tools for that something else.

------
prophetjohn
I have to seriously doubt this. Being good at programming requires a very
similar type of brain as the one required to be good at mathematics. The
argument is often "if only programming were to become standard curriculum
which everyone is required to learn in some capacity, more people would be
programming-literate."

Mathematics, in some level, has been required at all levels of education for
quite some time and yet very few people can become proficient at anything at
the college algebra level or above. If programming were to become as
commonplace in our education system as math is, I believe you would see much
the same thing. Many people would be able to memorize enough rules to get
through the basics, but once it comes time to show that these basic concepts
are understood in the form of applying them to more advanced concepts, you're
going to see more people failing to get by, just as you do in anything other
than basic math classes.

I certainly couldn't imagine a career becoming mainstream that requires mid-
level calculus, or even algebra, and certainly not advanced analysis and
proofing. By the same token, I find it hard to believe that any profession
that requires understanding more than basic computer science concepts (simple
looping and conditionals, no OO) will become mainstream. However programming
today (writing a Rails app) is significantly different than it was 10 years
ago (writing massive programs in C/assembly), so it's possible that
programming becomes much easier than it currently is.

------
qdog
Chemistry, Engineering, Mathematics, etc. all existed before coding. So far,
the number of people willing to do hard 'mental' tasks has been pretty low.
More than a few people I have known haven't gotten into working with their
brain that much until later in life, once they decide that the types of jobs
generally available to the unskilled aren't what they want to do.

3 months to learn to code Java? I shudder to think of think kind of code those
places produce.

Maybe people can learn to make database queries maybe, but most problems I've
been asked to solve quickly morph and start requiring a lot more to get
working, even to accomplish tasks that seem 'simple' on the surface.

If coding was simple to learn, UML->code would work flawlessly (as in a tool
that generates code from UML). I don't think this has proven to be the case.

------
zyb09
Of course! It's gonna be THE profession. I imaging in the future more and more
things will be doable in 'software'. For example, manufacturing factories will
be so automated and full of robots, that you can actually start building
assembly lines in pure code. Subway & Railroad systems will drive completely
by them self, controlled by code. Container ships & harbours might operate
someday purely driven by software. Bottom line: Demand for coders is gonna
explode and someday all we need is just coders.

~~~
moocow01
Sorry but I have to completely disagree that someday all we will need is just
coders. Code is just a way of getting a computer to do something specific. So
what should a computer do? Usually a computer should do something identified
as valuable. So who figures out what is valuable? Typically everyone else...
business people, researchers, administrators, doctors, analysts, etc. Having
just a bunch of coders would be essentially worthless in that we will always
need people in other roles to figure out how different techniques can be
applied in different fields. After that is identified, the coders can then get
to work on figuring out how to get a computer to do it.

~~~
zyb09
true, although the point I was making is that sooner or later fields like
agriculture, energy, manufacturing, transportation, logistics and others will
be completely automated and just require coders to operate. That leaves _some_
other fields, but these are huge parts of the economy. That's not gonna happen
tomorrow of course, but we'll gradually get towards is and coder demand is
just increase steadily over time.

~~~
crpatino
I do not think this is accurate either. Just because something is possible
(and it is a big IF to say that it is possible to reach 100% automation,
economy wide) does not mean that it will end up being that way.

Consider, let's say, manufacturing. We have pretty much nailed down the
details of how to automate a factory. Still, we do not see that the world
manufacturing has been dominated by the most technologically advanced
countries. When you automate, you have to pay upfront for your robots (with a
ROI measured in years). With human operators, you defer payment until after
you have collected the benefits of their labor (in terms of finished product
inventory, not revenue). Not that it has not been tried, car companies tried
to pull it off in the 70's, because in the books it looks like the robot is an
asset, while the payroll is a liability. But they all discovered the hard way
that cash is king and have been struggling with imminent bankruptcy ever
since.

Instead, the big powerhouses are less advanced countries with large pools of
young workers and weak labor laws. There a manufacturer can get started with
much less capital and pay as it goes, instead of building these huge, high-
maintenance, illiquid capital investments. And when the market shifts (and it
always does) they can retool an pivot much faster too.

Apply the same logic to economic activities where bussiness processes are not
throughly documented or even understood (like crafts and professions), or
those which depend on contingent uncontrollable factors (like agriculture),
and you will see that the idea of a fully automated society is beyond human
reach.

Maybe if we manage to build a super-intelligence to solve all these problems
for us, we may have a chance, or maybe there are fundamental limits that just
cannot be overcome. But in either case, as of today, I think this is more
science-fiction than actual science.

~~~
pyoung
I can't dig up the link, but I recently stumbled across an article that
highlighted a start up that was building a robot that would kill weeds (for
agricultural purposes), replacing migrant workers.

I agree that not all workers will end up being programmers, but a shift
towards automation is inevitable as routine human labor will eventually be too
costly and inefficient, regardless of the location. China is already starting
to show signs of rising labor costs due to an improving economy and a shortage
of labor. I would bet against human labor in the long run, as counting on lax
labor laws and a population of workers who are willing to tolerate abject
poverty as a method for keeping production costs down seems like an
unsustainable solution.

~~~
crpatino
I am not saying it is not technically possible, but that it might not make
financial sense long term. Nor I am saying that we should do without any
automation (agriculture, by the way is already highly mechanized), I consider
that there might be a sweet spot beyond which further development is not worth
the hassle.

------
floppydisk
Unlike prior shifts in national economies, coding--good coding at least--does
not lend itself to the application of mass labor unlike manufacturing. In the
prior mentioned shifts, hunter/gatherer --> agrarian and agrarian -->
industrial, you could teach someone to do one or two repetitive jobs without
consequence to the rest of the system. Every night at 5, shovel hay from loft
to stall or every time a piece from machine A emerges, screw this knobby on
and insert into machine B at a 45 degree angle. I would posit that coding
requires far more awareness of the greater system as a whole. Changes made in
one branch of the code will have a rippling effect throughout the system.

------
gexla
Nope, never a mass profession. Here's why.

1\. This partially depends on which area of programming you are talking about.
The web development industry is not an area which sees mass hiring. Most web
development shops are small teams or one man shops. Running a web development
shop is very hard because you have to make a living from running your business
as opposed to punching a clock at work. Web development is difficult enough,
add all that is required to make a living off it and that cuts the number of
people who are able to make it by quite a bit. The article mentions Elance and
Odesk jobs which pay "$15 to $20 or more per hour" but the only people who are
able to make a living off those wages are living in low wage companies. In the
U.S. you might as well be flipping burgers rather than attempting to live as a
freelancer at those rates.

The same could largely be said for startups, mobile apps, etc.

2\. How many coders does companies such as Google and Facebook have compared
to the peak of companies such as Ford? Coding is not and never will be the
sort of mass employment industry as manufacturing has been.

3\. Coding requires a great deal of self motivation to learn and keep up with.
Most people aren't willing to put in the effort that this requires. I learn by
doing and I have never had the patience for books, classroom learning or even
tutorials. Most people can't pick this stuff up without the sort of structured
learning environment which doesn't work well for learning how to code. The
number of people who are willing to put in this effort is likely the same
percentage of people who are coders today.

4\. The labor crunch in the coding industry is not just a crunch of people who
know how to code, but rather a crunch for coders who are near the top. The
industry could find plenty of people if they are looking for mediocre
developers, but that's not where the jobs are going.

5\. Knowing the basics of coding for working magic in spreadsheets isn't the
same as being handed the keys to commit code to the crown jewels of the
company. No matter how many people who know how to code and no matter what the
basic expectations are for prospective employees, there won't ever be a
significant increase in the number of people who are able to write the code
which drives the company.

If the industry needs more coders, then probably the best solution at this
point is to be more open to remote developers. That will increase the pool
available. Education will also increase the pool, but not on a massive scale.

~~~
rpwilcox
> but rather a crunch for coders who are near the top. The industry could find
> plenty of people if they are looking for mediocre developers, but that's not
> where the jobs are going.

Exactly: to me the talent "crunch" seems to be for: Rockstar/ninja programmers
will 10 years experience that live in the SF Bay area.

... and then they wonder why they can't find people.

------
jcizzle
I don't think programming in its current form will become similar to unskilled
labor. The important part about the examples at the beginning of the article
(construction, factory workers) is that there were engineers (smart experts)
behind the innovation that simplified a task so that an unskilled laborer
could do it.

Can programming become so dumbed down that anyone could do it? Sure, there are
plenty of tools out there that are "App Makers" for whatever platform/genre
you want. But are those tools churning out apps that make a company? I haven't
seen one.

The thing about software is that it is a ton of small pieces put together to
create something new and unique. Factory workers put together a ton of small
pieces, but to create something that has already been invented. A car, for
example, has a specification created by smart people and put together by
unskilled workers and machines.

------
brikis98
My guess is that in the next few decades, not knowing how to code will be
equivalent to being illiterate. This doesn't mean everyone will get paid to
write code, but I suspect there will be _far_ more programmers in the future
than now.

Of course, coding in and of itself is likely to change dramatically, as
languages will gradually support higher and higher levels of abstraction,
making programming more and more approachable for the average person. But no
matter what the code looks like, a strong grasp of logic, problem solving, and
how software works will probably become a fundamental skill in society.

[http://www.quora.com/Does-the-computer-programming-
professio...](http://www.quora.com/Does-the-computer-programming-profession-
have-a-future/answer/Yevgeniy-Brikman)

------
groby_b
Coding? Maybe. Actually developing new software? No.

What is the difference? "Coding" is applying the tools you have to solve a
problem that is in an already solved class of problems. (I.e. use VB to slap a
quick UI on a database)

Developing new software often means solving a new class of problem.

There's nothing wrong with that distinction - coding certainly has value. But
it's an important one to keep in mind. Both for your career, and for
businesses that employ one or the other kind of developer.

But I'd argue that "coding" as outlined above is more the new literacy than
the new profession. It is an ability you will need to get any job done well.

------
ZoltonVonMises
I certainly hope it does not become the next mass profession. I don't
understand people that want everyone to learn to code. Its simple supply and
demand, friends. As the supply of coders goes up, demand for my services go
down.

~~~
danso
Maybe that would be the case in other professions...but as a coder, I would
LOVE to have more people involved in it. I think programming is one of those
areas in which a rising tide lifts all boats.

I find that most of my time is either dumbing things down (i.e. printing the
output of a relational database into a flat spreadsheet or worse, a PDF) for
those who barely understand basic Excel or attempting to parse such dumbed-
down information from other systems. If it were status quo in this world to
understand the concept of delimitation and meta-data, my ability to create
even more compelling applications, visualizations, and analyses would be
greatly multiplied.

~~~
ZoltonVonMises
I definitely understand. I'm just looking at it from a purely economical
perspective. Sure, as the mass's technical prowess goes up, my ability to
create cool things also goes up, but as the mass's technical prowess goes up,
the earning potential in programming goes down.

Any time a resource becomes less scarce, it's value drops.

~~~
danso
Sure, though I'd argue that maybe you're too shortsighted. If you were one of
the few literate people at the time of Gutenberg, you might have a good start
on everyone else...yet if that kind of literacy ratio never improved within a
generation, I'd argue that you might have ended up poorer. Especially if you
had the hankering to be more than just a reader...few literate people means
few reasons to write books/pamphlets.

~~~
prophetjohn
But we're not writing code for it to be read by other programmers. We're
writing code for what it does when it's executed. More programmers does not
make a greater market for programmers. At least not for that reason.

------
nradov
Sure there is room for more people to become software developers, but let's
not use the word 'profession'.

Quote from Steve McConnell:

——————————

According to legal precedents, a profession has:[1]

· A requirement for extensive learning and training

· A code of ethics imposing standards higher than those normally tolerated in
the marketplace

· A disciplinary system for professionals who breach the code

· A primary emphasis on social responsibility over strictly individual gain,
and a corresponding duty of its members to behave as members of a disciplined
and honorable profession

· A prerequisite of a license prior to admission to practice

——————————

<http://www.stevemcconnell.com/psd/06-novumorganum.htm>

Software development in general hardly meets those qualifications. There are
plenty of professional software developers, but software development is not a
_profession_. This is a critical distinction, not just semantics.

------
contextfree
If programming (or CS concepts) were to become part of common literacy, that
wouldn't necessarily mean programming qua profession would be the next mass
profession. Writing is part of common literacy, but professional writers
aren't a huge portion of the population. There are a lot more people who write
in the course of their work in some other profession, though.

~~~
philwelch
There are a lot of people who program in the course of their work in some
other profession. Most engineers can hack some Matlab, at least. But the bar
is much higher--most engineering professions are at least as intellectually
challenging as programming.

------
BrokerChange
Farming became obsolete because of economies of scale.

Factory work became obsolete because of economies of scale.

Manufacturing became obsolete because of economies of scale.

What do you think is our generation's economy of scale?

I think the near future will involve making it possible for anyone, even those
without a technical background, to quickly build beautiful internet products.

What do you think is the next big leap? What would make coding obsolete?

~~~
jbester
Obsolete is a strong word. What happens in these industries is that they get
split into the high-end (organic farming, small order manufacturing) and the
mass-production low-end. Yes in many ways margin have fallen but overall
production has gone up, way up.

That being said - retail seems to be our generation's victim. In the last
decade, we've replaced media consumables with digital equivalents. This alone
has mostly killed music, book, and movie rental stores. It's not just retail
stores but retail services - tax prep, insurance, and financial services. Some
of this took place in the 90's, but it continued in the 00's and it will
continue in the 10's.

~~~
BrokerChange
I do agree that is a strong word. I guess what I was referring to was it's
obselenece as a mass profession. I assumed that was implicit, wrongfully.

I was hoping to drive home the point that while coding is the "it" thing right
now, eventually someone will build a framework that makes having a technical
background moot (similar to the power YouTube has given to the home movie
producer or music artist).

I think you may be right in regards to the retail prediction. Amazon is going
to continue to absorb the majority of retail sales, especially as baby boomers
(the highest spending demographic in history) completes the retirement cycle
and diminishes disposable income in the market.

------
shimsham
Saeed Dehnadi and Richard have done some interesting work on... A cognitive
study of early learning of programming, available at Saeed's page:

<http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/>

------
drumdance
I think there are certain skills that strongly overlap. I never studied
programming, but I did study music. I've seen that pattern many times. So
perhaps students at music schools should consider developing secondary skills
in coding. I certainly wish I had done that.

------
mycodebreaks
This is a tough job, most people don't want it.

People like to be lawyers and study business more instead of becoming
programmers.

------
kunj2aan
>One Ivy League computer science program only required one course where
students actually write code.

Which program is that?

------
danso
I wish coding were viewed as not just a profession, but a necessary skill to
be literate in today's world. It seems impossible to me that our society can
keep up with the pace and breadth of information that our digital-systems
create.

And I don't mean that everyone should be able to understand assembly. I'd
almost be happy if the average person can understand what makes a comma-
delimited file parsable by Excel. Seriously...try asking someone who is not in
the computing field about that.

------
InclinedPlane
"Coding" isn't one thing. We wouldn't imagine that it makes sense to put a
home "cook" whose idea of making a pie encompasses placing a can of premade
pie filling into a premade pie shell in the same bucket as a chef with several
Michelin stars under their belt. Coding has as much range and as many
different roles as cooking does, if not more, but there doesn't exist a well
defined set of labels enumerating such divisions of skill and specialization.

Certainly "coding" will increasingly become prevalent in more and more
professions. But that says little about whether the coding equivalent of
"chefs" will be more numerous or not.

------
j45
Programming is as much an art as a science.

It's as much the ability to find the dots as it is being able to connect the
dots to make a usable picture.

I think some of the more basic, entry level, spec-based maybe development
could become available for the masses, but until we do a better job of
training people to engage and develop both heir creative artist and creative
scientist, I'm not sure.

------
noduerme
63% of Americans aged 18 to 24 couldn't find Iraq on a map after we'd been at
war there for three years. So let's discount those people right away. The rest
-- the other 37% -- have jobs and at least some kind of education. Most of
them aren't interested in solving puzzles; they're interested in making money.
That's what comes naturally to them.

I'm a mid-level coder. I bill $100-$150/hr. freelance. I specialize in
cleaning up the messes left by the Indians and Romanians they hired the first
time. I turn their disaster into a functional app, or website, on time and on
budget (a budget about six times what they thought they'd be paying, but still
not enough for the aggravation). It's a hellishly difficult job that makes me
want to pull my hair out by the roots; but I'm good at what I do.

I DIDN'T go to college, and I never took a class in programming. And yet there
are only one or two other guys in the world I'd trust to work on my code. So
all of this, really, is bullshit. It's nice, but it's a lie. Either you're
born with the kind of screwed up brain I have, that lets you see through the
code, or you're not. They can commodify everything and turn everyone into a
product, but they can't make more of us.

~~~
pyoung
"63% of Americans aged 18 to 24 couldn't find Iraq on a map after we'd been at
war there for three years."

This is a little off topic, but this statistic is a bit disingenuous. The stat
implies that Americans are dumb because they can't locate a country on a map,
despite the fact that we are heavily engaged with that country. However
knowledge of foreign policy and of geography are two different domains. A
person could read an article a day about the Iraq war without ever looking at
a map of the mid east.

~~~
dextorious
"""However knowledge of foreign policy and of geography are two different
domains. A person could read an article a day about the Iraq war without ever
looking at a map of the mid east."""

Yeah. And I wouldn't trust the foreign policy knowledge of such a person.

A person not interested in checking out for himself the geography of the place
of war, and even the culture and history of the enemies, is just an idiot
being force-fed news stories.

