
Meanwhile, at code.org - nickmain
http://worrydream.com/MeanwhileAtCodeOrg/
======
electrograv
> _This is the depth of thought that powers nationwide policy decisions. But
> hey, congratulations to musician and entertainer will.i.am for at least
> having an educational philosophy that’s not completely unreasonable or
> horrifying._

Quite frankly I'm shocked and confused by some of the negativity I've seen
expressed (including those from the HN community) towards code.org, and the
idea of programming as a basic literacy in general.

It seems like these people will do almost anything to find something about
this idea to pick on, ridicule, discredit, and otherwise attack. Seriously,
_last time this came up on HN the majority of the discussion was about how
horrible it is that this movement uses the phrase "learn to code" rather than
"learn to program"_.

Now it's ad hominem attacks against musicians/artists advocating literacy and
education -- and what do those attacks say? "Congratulations [...] for having
an educational philosophy that's not completely unreasonable and horrifying."
What a disgusting backhanded "compliment". Is there something about being a
musician or artist that disallows one from having a valid intellectual opinion
taken for its own sake, without being patronized?

 _" Aww isn't that cute! A musician/artist having an intellectual idea that
isn't completely terrible -- like a quaint little animal trying to imitate us
true intellectuals up here in our high tower of superiority."_ I exaggerate,
but this is basically the elitist mentality I perceive behind the actual
quote.

To me, this comes off as a desperate attempt to defame this movement because
it threatens to demote the status of basic technology roles from "elite magic"
to "basic literacy" \-- and to some people, apparently that's not an amazing
social good, but a terrifying prospect of power loss. Am I way off base here
in perceiving this?

To address the main point: So what if some person never intended to claim that
learning to program makes you smarter. Coding is becoming more popular, more
socially acceptable, and viewed more positively not only as a career choice
but as a basic literacy that will be extremely important in the future (which
is true). That's a good thing.

~~~
mkremins
> _" Aww isn't that cute! A musician/artist having an intellectual idea that
> isn't completely terrible -- like a quaint little animal trying to imitate
> us true intellectuals up here in our high tower of superiority." I
> exaggerate, but this is basically the elitist mentality I perceive behind
> the actual quote. Am I way off base here?_

I get the impression that this comment has more to do with contrasting
will.i.am's statement with the other statements on code.org for effect than it
has to do with specifically putting down will.i.am.

With this comment, the linked piece seems to be implying that the statements
made by Zuckerberg, Clinton et al are inspired by wrongheaded beliefs about
the purpose of education, and that only will.i.am's statement comes anywhere
close to hitting the right tone. I read this comment as genuinely
complimentary, albeit weak.

As I read it, Bret Victor's critique of code.org is more nuanced than the
usual complaints: it stems from a disagreement with code.org's implicit claim
that programming should be taught in schools _because_ programming is
currently a high-value skill, in terms of the amount of money you can earn by
doing it professionally. He seems to think that school shouldn't be primarily
about training people to be "useful" to employers or the government in the
short term. I'm somewhat inclined to agree.

> _To me, this comes off as a desperate attempt to defame this movement
> because it threatens to demote the status of basic technology roles from
> "elite magic" to "basic literacy" \-- and to some people, apparently that's
> not an amazing social good, but a terrifying prospect of power loss. Am I
> way off base here in perceiving this?_

In the context of Victor's body of work (which is focused more or less
entirely on making the incredible power of computers more accessible to more
people), I have a hard time believing that any such motivation underlies the
linked piece. While I think there definitely exists such a motivation in other
criticisms of the learn-to-code meme, I don't think it has much to do with
Victor's critiques.

~~~
d23
> With this comment, the linked piece seems to be implying that the statements
> made by Zuckerberg, Clinton et al are inspired by wrongheaded beliefs about
> the purpose of education, and that only will.i.am's statement comes anywhere
> close to hitting the right tone. I read this comment as genuinely
> complimentary, albeit weak.

Fair enough, but is Gates's claim that "learning to write programs stretches
your mind" really that far off or that much worse? Or that "an understanding
of computer science is becoming increasing essentially in today's world"?
Maybe it's a trivial point, but is it as offensive as this link makes it out
to be?

~~~
mkremins
I think the point Bret Victor is trying to make is that what he perceives as
the real value of programming (its use as a powerful extension of the
programmer's cognitive abilities) is absent entirely from the perception of
programming as an inherently good thing that code.org and related groups are
pushing.

Programming is, and ought to be seen as, merely a means to an end – not an end
in and of itself. A movement that gets programming into to schools by claiming
code is itself a Good Thing will inevitably bring into existence a programming
curriculum that ignores the important abstract stuff about coding-as-a-concept
(the new ways in which computers can extend the mind) and focuses instead on
the concrete "implementation details" of programming today (text files, the
command line, and all that other baggage from 20 years ago with which
programmers are still saddled).

Basically: the reasoning is important, the code isn't, and code.org is all
about the code.

~~~
agentultra
> _Programming is, and ought to be seen as, merely a means to an end – not an
> end in and of itself._

This is the essential piece I thought Bret made clear by highlighting the
choice quotes from Seymour Papert.

Treating programming as a means to an end has very pragmatic ramifications for
programming. It means we can question the value of our tools when they do not
serve our goals. Otherwise we are the mercy of them (and entrench the status
quo as state-of-the-art).

One question I've been grappling with is why it takes so many human-hours of
work to produce conceptually simple programs.

------
ambivalence
You surely shared this so I can weigh in. No? Not really? Well, here's my
opinion anyway. In this infographic Bret Victor claims that expecting college
education to prepare you for a day job is an invalid idea. He also implies
that an opinion of an MIT mathematician is inherently more trustworthy and
correct than opinions of dozens of business leaders, politicians, educators,
astronauts, and, oh, Stephen Hawking (“Whether you want to uncover the secrets
of the universe, or you just want to pursue a career in the 21st century,
basic computer programming is an essential skill to learn.“). Oh, you missed
that in his infographic? It's probably because it conveniently wasn't there.
Check out the full list at [http://code.org/quotes](http://code.org/quotes)

But really, is it fair to compare a long, structured statement with brief
quotes that are meant to be an effective marketing tool? Before you cringe at
the dirty m-word, consider what is being marketed here. Kids now learn
creationism, liberal arts, and opinionated history at school. Coding is a
refreshingly logical, concrete and objective field of study. It's worth
getting it to the 90% of high schools that don't teach it yet, even if it ends
up being trivial if-then-else turtle-make-30-steps-forward. We're at a time
where it's more about simply getting the foot in the door.

Then again, it's easier to fire up Illustrator and call bullshit on an
initiative to bring more _rational_ education to the curriculum. This is the
depth of thought that powers elitism and the status quo. Snarky infographics
that suggest that programming is worthless without tying it to specific so
called Powerful Ideas are harmful. Even if they're drawn by a world-class
designer and electrical engineer. Or maybe especially then.

~~~
kbenson
But is it more rational education? I think his point is that programming as an
end itself does little to help empower students. Programming as a tool to
enable further exploration of higher concepts is the goal he thinks we should
be pursuing, and _if code.org presents programming as the goal and ignores
why_ , then I think he's justified in his criticism.

I think it's worth examining history for a parallel. If in the 1920's there
was a large push towards mechanical knowledge of the populace (but not
necessarily science and engineering) because an understanding of mechanical
engines is increasingly essential in todays world, we need 120,000 trained
mechanics every year, and the policy at Boeing is literally to hire as many
talented mechanics as they can find, I think in hindsight I might also say
that it sounds a bit like they are just trying to fill an economic need. Which
is fine. But Bret Victor seems to care about _teaching_ and _learning_ , and
code.org, from it's main page, seems to care little about that.

~~~
phillmv
The extent to which some people here are feeling personally slighted I think
kind of proves Brett's point.

------
kbenson
Probably best viewed in light of his main site[1] ( _Warning! May result in
feelings of inadequacy_ ), where he goes to great length to do exactly what he
thinks these people aren't, explain complex ideas and concepts using programs,
programming and the resulting visualizations.

[1]: [http://worrydream.com/](http://worrydream.com/)

~~~
dougk16
"Warning! May result in feelings of inadequacy"

Ha ha...yea, usually I get inspired by other people's projects, but visiting
worrydream.com just makes me want to quit everything.

~~~
kbenson
Yeah, The first time I saw it was back in late 2011 when _Up and Down the
Ladder of Abstraction_ [1] was linked. After viewing the main site, and
sharing it with some friends and co-workers, the feeling was almost unanimous.

[1]:
[http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/](http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/)

------
Smerity
I quite like Bret Victor and points he has made previously, but this seems
entirely aimed at inspiring a flamewar. I'd love to have a discussion around
this, but I don't feel that will happen due to the way the message was
portrayed.

On that page, he literally takes a paragraph of text from each of the speakers
and outputs a single sentence, extreme in interpretation. Code.org isn't just
aiming at one person, so they represent multiple points of view. Parents want
to know their children will be financially stable, politicians who can
influence this at a higher level want to be able to say it will help the
nation, and Bill Gates would likely be able to point you to literature showing
that introduction to computing concepts at a young age would help
understanding of certain topics. Surprise: none of these points can be
properly conveyed in one paragraph.

I helped make an online learning tool used by thousands of students[1]. I'm
tutoring at a computer science summer camp for high school students right
now[2] (and have done so for six years). From all this, I've seen the impact
that computer science and programming can have on students when correctly
introduced. It is truly amazing. It is fundamentally changing. Even if this
isn't applicable for all students, there is still a long and hard push to have
this adopted more heavily in education.

That is Code.org's fight.

[1]: [https://groklearning.com/](https://groklearning.com/) [2]:
[http://ncss.edu.au/summer_school/index.html](http://ncss.edu.au/summer_school/index.html)

------
brandonbloom
Disclaimer: I worked on Code.org's Blockly tutorials.

I'm a fan of Bret Victor's work, but this leaves a real bad taste in my mouth.

Frankly, I don't believe that Bret doesn't understand the nature of marketing.
He must be aware that [http://code.org/quotes](http://code.org/quotes) is a
tool to help influence policy and garner support, rather than a statement on
the proposed mechanisms of education.

Code.org has lots of empirical evidence that having celebrities involved
inspires kids. Having female role models encourages girls to try. Showing
national politicians from both sides of the isle eases local policy progress.

I'm feeling pretty good about my involvement, because I've seen a lot of
comments from parents and teachers like this one:
[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=538314902931484&set=...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=538314902931484&set=a.413799078716401.1073741827.309754825787494&type=1&stream_ref=10)

and videos like this one:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_t3-3vPp-g&feature=c4-overvi...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_t3-3vPp-g&feature=c4-overview&list=UUJyEBMU1xVP2be1-AoGS1BA)

I taught Scratch in a Harlem classroom once a week in the months leading up to
the Hour Of Code and struggled. Once the Angry Birds & Plants vs Zombies
tutorials were ready to beta, I tried it on the class and the results were
_incredible_. Kids that did nothing all semester were suddenly cruising
through levels and jumping up and down with excitement. When they went back to
Scratch, they suddenly were making dramatically more progress and being
creative.

Should also mention, that we've got tons of unplugged activities and lots of
other educational materials too. Even more on the way:
[http://code.org/educate/curriculum](http://code.org/educate/curriculum)

I've lost a lot of respect for Bret Victor just now because he's belittling
the work of people who _genuinely care_ and who would love to see his ideas
incorporated. There's a much bigger battle to be fought before we can even
consider what he's proposing, but he seems willing to work against incremental
progress because it's not revolutionary in quite the way he likes.

We've got many types of learning materials at
[http://code.org/learn](http://code.org/learn) from all sorts of providers. My
contract with Code.org is over, but if Bret wants to show us how its done, I'm
sure the team is willing to share our megaphone.

~~~
phillmv
He's belittling the political stance of code.org as represented by its
marketing.

He's not saying "don't teach kids how to program", he's saying "we're teaching
kids how to program for the wrong reasons". The implication is, if you're
teaching it for the wrong reasons, we're not doing the best we could for the
kids.

That's a perfectly valid thing to say, independently of the good intentions
and sincere efforts of all the people involved.

~~~
OverlordXenu
But is it terribly constructive to do it in such a snarky, belittling way? If
they're doing good and you think their methods are wrong, I mean, you can say
that without being an ass. Though I guess it doesn't matter.

~~~
endlessvoid94
It's getting us talking about it. I'd say that's pretty effective.

------
eschaton
I'll come right out and say it: learning to program _will_ teach you to think
better. It gives you another tool with which to interpret and analyze the
world, and if applied well that actually can result in better thought.

~~~
dkuntz2
I think you should amend that from "will" to "could". You could have a
terrible teaching, you might not have the will to learn, and you might not
learn.

~~~
elwell
GP said "learning to program", which implies that the person learns.

~~~
kbenson
I think the point is that learning to program is not necessarily equivalent to
learning to think better. They may learn to program, and _not_ learn to think
better. _Which is what this whole thing is about._ Should we be telling people
"you need to learn to code" to possibly fuel an economic hole, or should we be
telling them "We want to teach you a valuable way to think and reason by using
programming" which may address _future_ economic and social needs?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
"Think better" is a pretty nebulous term but I'm not sure you can learn any
new field - especially not one concerning a new manner of problem solving -
and not have learnt to "think better".

~~~
dkuntz2
There are lots of CS students who haven't learnt to "think better". They can
type out symbols, and know what those symbols mean individually, but they
can't combine them in meaningful ways without lots of prompting.

------
amjaeger
This is just odd. I haven't seen any of his other stuff and when I read this I
thought he was against teaching kids how to program. From comments in this
thread I see why the post is critiquing the reasoning and motives for teaching
kids to program. I think that overall I think that his post hurts the movement
to teach programming, and doesn't really help to clarify or change the reasons
for why programming should be taught in school. Additionally the movement to
teach programming before college is making headway (remember whats happening
in Chicago?), which is a good thing, and it shouldn't be demonized just
because one thinks the motive is bad. Try to influence it positively instead
of sending it backwards. Also addressing the "programming isn't for everyone"
argument I had to suffer through all the common general studies classes so the
argument that programming isn't for everyone is bs, because English and
History aren't for me, but I still had to learn it.

~~~
kbenson
Here's something to think about: Should we teach accounting in high school, or
math and economics?

What is "coding", or "programming"? Maybe in the context you mentioned, it's
computer science. Maybe it's learning how to put together a python script to
do some stuff.

When I was getting my degree in CS, there was quite a bit of grousing from the
students about how we were being taught very little about how to actually
_program_. You know what? I doubt that was detrimental to too many people.

------
jowiar
The point Victor is trying to make is that the assorted leaders are saying
"Learn to program because we need people to know how to program". But the more
important question is why do we need people to learn how to program. Maybe
programming is the best way to achieve those ends for now, but learning
programming because someone said you should learn programming falls into the
same hole that much of our education system does.

Instead, we need to keep an eye on the real goal, understand why we are doing
what we are doing. Maybe programming, as it is now, is it. Some number of
years down the line, there will be a better tool for achieving whatever your
end goal is, and an individual or societal worship of programming will only
blind people from finding that.

------
litmus
It's clear from this post and his post on Khan Acadamy, that Bret Victor is
uneasy about the immediacy of the recent "Coding Activism" movement and is
probably motivated to write these types of posts because some coders taking
part in this movement often cite him as their inspiration. I'm sure he feels
compelled to emphasize that the intention put forth in the sum of the work of
people like Papert and Douglas Engelbart was not to ultimately fuel the
creation of a "cooler IDE".

------
carls
The frustration and resentment articulated through the comments here towards
Bret Victor's post seems to stem from one of two sources:

(a) Bret Victor claiming that code.org is implicitly, via quotes from high-
profile figures, supporting a misguided view of computer science education
that is overly simplistic and suboptimal towards providing the deeper, more
nuanced value that programming can teach.

(b) Bret Victor himself being simplistic and uncharitable in mocking the
quotes by these high-profile figures.

I think Bret is correct to point out (a), but the method that he chose to do
so lended itself to an acrimonious response by many people who have good
intentions, leading to responses towards (b). I myself was initially annoyed
by the tone of his post. But after some thought and reflection, I found myself
agreeing with the sentiment expressed by this post.

I do think that there is a lot more nuance that could have been communicated
when it comes to the value of learning programming. The real debate here, I
think, is whether it's reasonable to expect a high-profile figure to comment
with such sophistication and nuance, especially within the constraints of a
short blurb (which is what I would presume is what their PR person and
code.org agreed upon).

Is it justified to expect such a degree of nuance from high-status figures and
organizations, given the context that computer science education is currently
in?

------
elwell
Wow, this argument is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect from
Bret Victor.

1\. It doesn't make sense to use the Papert quote as an assumption of truth.
(At least add a commentary to why you agree with Papert (since Papert doesn't
explain his reasoning in the given excerpt))

2\. I thought that almost every programmer thinks that learning to program has
improved their ability to think about problems; especially, I imagined Bret
would.

~~~
david927
Read it again and really spend time thinking about it. You'll see it actually
fits perfectly with what he's always believed, and I couldn't agree more. Here
it is again:

 _Programming can serve as a medium in which powerful ideas can be brought
within reach. But the focus, of course, must be on the powerful ideas, not the
programming itself._

------
wyager
Programming literacy today is like writing literacy 500 years ago.

You don't need it for every job.

You definitely don't need to be an expert at it for most jobs.

It's just nice when a lot of people can do it moderately well.

------
paulrademacher
I'm not sure how anyone could question Gates, Zuckerberg, or Sandberg on their
sincere and informed interest in young people studying computer science. The
criticism on that page is so infantile, I can't even think of a proper
response.

~~~
david927
You didn't understand what he wrote, but that's understandable. The target
audience is not you, or sadly, most of HN for that matter. He's clarifying an
important point that Seymour Papert made, for people who know who Seymour
Papert is (and who don't give a whit who Gates, Zuckerberg, and Sandberg are).

------
pizza
Is it fair to equivocate the one or two sentence front-page hooks to the
thinking that these people do on a regular basis?

edit: intriguing that ambivalence and I posted almost the same thing
simultaneously!

------
phil
This is so strange to see, especially since code.org's tutorials might be the
closest thing we've got to a widely used implementation of (some of) Mr.
Victor's ideas.

------
Jormundir
This whole issue of adding programming / computer science to the curriculum is
overstepping and even outright ignoring the problems with our education
system. If huge numbers of students graduate from high school without being
able to do algebra, what do you think will come of these schools trying to
teach kids to program? Imo, this is just the wrong issue to be focusing on.
Though it does make for plenty of good PR for the people and companies
involved.

~~~
lwan
So you're saying it's wrong for an independent organization to focus its
efforts on a particular topic?

This is a completely invalid argument. Should you be working your day job
while there's still hunger in the first world?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Yes, but your analogy is flawed. This is more akin to dumping extra cargo on
an overloaded donkey because of its supposed utility.

When education rankings are already so poor, adding another layer to the
compulsory curriculum complicates the mess even further.

What's more is that all of the school districts that are rushing to implement
this first (like Chicago) all struggle with low results and inefficient,
highly bureaucratic teaching. Something tells me that adding coding (while
erroneously calling it "computer science" to make it sound grandiose) will
only lead to further mediocrity, deterioration and a lot of kids coming out
with false and butchered ideas of what programming entails.

It's not that teaching programming is bad, so much as trusting that the
compulsory school system will get it right is laughable and a recipe for
disaster. This has the potential to go very wrong, or even be ultimately
useless if it's just entry-level procedural constructs being repeated ad
nauseam.

The camp here appears to be divided between people who highly support it at
all costs and people who criticize all aspects. I'm more leaning to the latter
camp, quite frankly, but one thing we really should all be focusing on is
_what the hell will they be actually teaching_. I have yet to see a conclusive
answer.

------
indymike
Just remember that literacy for the masses was opposed for centuries. Being
able to code is the computer equivalent of writing. Writing is 50% of
literacy.

------
knappador
I programmed in basic on an old IBM dual-floppy thingamajig in like 1999 or
something. We actually didn't program it turns out. I dropped some highschool
computer class that turned out to be typing or something. I'm not expecting
Chris Bosh to show up in my mailing lists, but of all fights in the universe
to pick, taking the time to fling dook at a vast improvement on what I had in
middle school? This individual has better things to do.

Let's bring up the whole ineffable thing again. It's like a finger pointing at
the moon. The finger can only be a pointer. Whatever truth that is in the moon
of programming or thinking in general can't be encapsulated in a pill and
injected into the liver. A really big pointer directs a lot of attention in
the general direction of the moon. Perhaps some of the tech moguls on the list
are being realistic about the payoff unless you schlogg hardcore through a
product development and your product goes to the moon.

Give me a break.

------
russelluresti
Hey, look, propaganda!

First off, I love the liberal summaries/restatement of the advocates of
code.org. You have in no way misinterpreted their obviously sinister
underlying meanings.

It's also cool that you referenced a quote from the author of Mindstorms, who
himself or his work, in no obvious way, influenced the mission of code.org.
Because, you know, random unrelated, and out-of-context quotes are awesome.
But you should probably go ahead and just redact that whole "I do not mean to
dismiss the 'treatment' studies as without value. For many children the
opportunity to program a computer is a valuable experience and can foster
important intellectual development." part of the text, because I think it may
contradict your message here.

------
cliveowen
"“Computer programmers are in great demand by American businesses, across the
tech sector, banking, entertainment, you name it. These are some of the
highest-paying jobs, but there are not enough graduates to fill these
opportunities.“" Marco Rubio, Senator Florida

Leaving aside the fact that he named exactly 0 jobs and just name-dropped a
couple of broad sectors (I guess "job" is a difficult concept to understand by
someone who never had one), did it occur to him that if those jobs are the
highest-paying (and that's debatable) is _because_ "there are not enough
graduates to fill these opportunities"?

------
al2o3cr
"This is the depth of thought that powers nationwide policy decisions."

Yep, because PR blurbs for things always explain the reasoning in detail.
_That 's_ the depth of thought that powers HN posts...

------
coolsunglasses
Privileged rich person says other people don't need to worry about obtaining
money or power.

Not an article headline from The Onion.

I nominally agree with him about code.org, just found the surrounding context
amusing.

------
efuquen
I'm always astonished by the backlash these topics gets in this community. Are
we all really so scared by the idea of trying to make coding more accessible
to people of all ages and backgrounds? Is there some irreparable harm being
done to the community and the profession? Even if you think this is another
dotcom craze, which I would debate, it looks like we all survived that quite
well if we've come back full circle.

I would ask you, how many of you have actually tried to teach kids how to
code? How many of you have the experience to back up your assertion that it's
simply "too hard" and only a select few should have the privilege? I would
imagine a handful and I would be surprised to hear anyone who has had that
experience tell me it's been a negative one (if it was I would sincerely love
to hear it and find out what issues you had).

For the past six months I've been teaching kids, at the high school level,
with little to no background in programming and all of whom Engilsh isn't even
their first language (it's an internationally diverse school), web development
skills (js/html/css). What I've found, which is pretty much what I expected,
was a varying degree of proficiency, some kids have gotten it really quickly
and some have needed a lot more help. But overall I've been amazed at their
progress and am totally convinced that this is something that needs to happen
in more schools at a wider scale.

There are real problems in trying to tackle this problem. I've met actual
teachers that have been involved in trying to teach CS curriculum and there is
definitely a lack of professional training among them. What they could really
use is the tech communities help and support, not their derision and
dismissal, it's so easy to view this from a cynical perspective instead of
trying to actually get something done. If any of you are actually interested
in trying to teach and see for yourselves whether this is worthwhile and you
live in the NYC area take a look at ScriptEd
([http://scripted.org/](http://scripted.org/)). Their focus is specifically in
promoting CS in socioeconomic under-represented groups. This is where I
volunteer but I know there are a few other organizations you can volunteer at
as well, their names escape me at the moment but you can attend the CS NYC
meetup to learn more ([http://www.meetup.com/CSNYC-Education-
Meetup/](http://www.meetup.com/CSNYC-Education-Meetup/)). If you don't live in
the the NYC area not sure of what other resources are out there but I'm sure
at least SF has similar initiatives, and probably a few other large
metropolitan areas.

~~~
vukmir
> _I 'm always astonished by the backlash these topics gets in this community.
> Are we all really so scared by the idea of trying to make coding more
> accessible to people of all ages and backgrounds?_

Can't speak for the whole community, but here's my opinion:

The main problem with code.org is that the message they are sending is
"programming is something easy that will make you rich and you should do it
for patriotic reasons".

I think that's the whole point of the article. I'm all for making programming
accessible to people of all ages and backgrounds, but we shouldn't lie to
them.

------
ilaksh
I think computer programming can be a much more accessible way to learn
problem solving and general thinking skills than other fields. Computers don't
need to cost a lot of money these days. So one computer can provide a lab with
infinite interactive experiments. Programming gives more feedback than
mathematics.

------
auggierose
Love the 1984ification of Sheryl Sandberg.

------
elwell
"View Source" shows imaged text duplicated in display:none block; surely for
SEO (I don't see how it would be for accessibility; might be wrong). I was
under the impression this SEO tactic is either ignored by search engines or
penalized...

~~~
arbus
You would generally want to put that as the title or alt text of the image for
it to get indexed correctly without any penalty

------
patrickmay
"It goes against the grain of modern education to teach students to program.
What fun is there to making plans, acquiring discipline, organizing thoughts,
devoting attention to detail, and learning to be self critical." \-- Alan
Perlis

------
Grue3
This is just embarassing. The fact that more than 200 people upvoted this even
moreso.

------
xname
Come on. Do you guys have any scientific evidence to support this kind of
claim, i.e. learn to code improves your thinking ability in general? Don't
treat your conventional assumption as a fact, this is a sign of weakness in
your thinking.

Even if the claim is true, how does it compare to other subjects? Say,
accounting, does learning accounting also improves thinking ability in
general? Does accounting also provide thinking tools can be transferred to
general problem solving strategies? How much advantage does coding have? If
there is such advantage, does it worth for students from accounting to learn
to code? You see, this is not a simple issue.

~~~
Crito
Programmers think that learning to code makes you a more rounded person.
Painters think that learning to paint makes you a more rounded person.
Carpenters think that learning carpentry makes you a more rounded person.

If this were one hundred years ago, we'd all be bleating on about how many
cars are suddenly popping up, and how all of our children need to become car
mechanics _(to become rich? to achieve enlightened? to secure our nation 's
position in emerging world of automation? you decide!)_.

 _[Disclaimer: I am a cynical and /or dissatisfied programmer]_

~~~
kbenson
_[Disclaimer: I am a cynical and /or dissatisfied programmer]_

As someone whose thought process seems to have gone in a very similar place
here[1], I'm interesting why, if you are up for sharing?

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7045317](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7045317)

~~~
Crito
Well, I'm dissatisfied for a number of reasons, some that I am still working
on figuring out, but the gist of it seems to be that I chose this career path
because I knew I was good at it, knew I could get through school as a CS
major, and knew I could get a job in it. Pretty much every reason besides _" I
thought I would enjoy doing it"_.

Seeing other people push for people to enter the industry for the money and/or
jobs, instead of satisfying a passion for the work, has me slightly...
annoyed. Annoyed is a good word for it.

 _(I don 't want anybody to worry about me; I am currently working on re-
adjusting my work/life balance to rein in on this dissatisfaction.)_

As for cynical... I don't buy into a lot of the more "mystic" ideas of coding
that many programmers seem to have.

Sure, there is a lot of insight to be had when you study computer science. For
example, learning about computability and the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle
_literally_ changed my outlook on life; I would not be the same person that I
am today if I had not studied computer science...

... _but_ I do not think that computer science is _in any way_ special in this
regard. My non-CS peers in university grew in their own personal ways as well.
They didn't miss out on anything that I had any more than I missed out on
things that they had.

That I think, is what many programmers don't understand. They lack exposure to
other perspectives, and therefore mistake their own path through life as the
obviously correct or superior path.

~~~
kbenson
_Pretty much every reason besides "I thought I would enjoy doing it"._

That's a shame. I think I've been lucky enough to move between different
focuses (between sysadmin and programming multiple times) enough that I never
got too bored or dissatisfied with any one.

 _Seeing other people push for people to enter the industry for the money and
/or jobs, instead of satisfying a passion for the work, has me slightly...
annoyed. Annoyed is a good word for it._

I can relate. I remember while in college circa 2002 thinking that the number
of CS students was artificially inflated by people who made decisions during
the dot-com boom. People that had no real aptitude for the subject, had no
passion for the subject, or both. I understand that's going to happen in any
major, but when it felt like upwards of 60% of my peers weren't interested,
and I couldn't help feeling they would have been better served by studying
something they actually cared for.

 _...but I do not think that computer science is in any way special in this
regard. My non-CS peers in university grew in their own personal ways as well.
They didn 't miss out on anything that I had any more than I missed out on
things that they had._

I'm routinely disappointed I haven't found more time to apply towards other
disciplines or areas of study (this isn't new, I used to want to go back for a
second major someday. I no longer necessarily view that as the best route for
further advancement though), especially in reading comments here from some
people that truly have some deep experience in different areas.

 _That I think, is what many programmers don 't understand. They lack exposure
to other perspectives, and therefore mistake their own path through life as
the obviously correct or superior path._

I think that's correct, but I also think it's a matter of people incorrectly
attributing value to programming based on positive outcomes they've
experienced after learning to program. Learning to read doesn't make me
smarter, per se, but it is a very useful tool in allowing me to learn and
explore certain ideas. I think programming is similar (although on a lesser
scale). It's a good tool for examining certain types of ideas which may
provide great benefit, but it's not a causal relationship.

------
hackaflocka
I find a couple of Bret Victor's talk-videos inspiring (mostly due to glimpses
of technology that seemingly aren't widely accessible yet).

But I cannot for the life of me figure out what he keeps complaining about.

~~~
gavinpc
Sooner or later, even Bret Victor is wrong on the internet.

------
Dewie
This piece is too easy to misinterpret when used as a direct link and not
accessed through Victor's website. Knowing that it is him, I interpret the
message in a wholly different way than when I first visited the site and
didn't know what worrydream.com is and who it belonged to.

He should have made it more fleshed out and his intent more explicit for that
reason.

------
hackaflocka
Sheryl Sandberg needs more free female interns!!! But hey, at least she's
always willing to go to bat for Larry Summers.

