Maybe the thought of people who do know how to communicate, such as Mayor Bloomberg, learning to code is bothersome to Jeff Atwood. If so, consider why.
My concern is that Bloomberg is just looking for money. He may have no interest in how a computer works.
If he could code, what sort of programs would he write?
For example, with respect to the desktop and the web, many "coders" write programs that are a constant game of manipulation of naive end users. The moral issues raised in programming are seemingly endless. It's relatively rare to find a programmer with a social conscience. Mainly because few people with a social conscience know how to program.
Would people like Bloomberg bring a greater sense of social conscience to programming? Or would they worsen the situation?
On the flipside, having more people be more familiar with programming might reduce the amount of manipulation that is possible. More people might start demanding and reading source code. That could be a positive force.
you know, now that i think about it, the first question really ought to be, why the hell does the man who brought us the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal bloomberg terminal need to "learn to code"? is he just talking about updating his skills, or has he actually been running one of the world's biggest data companies for more than thirty years without knowing how to program?
It just goes to show that you do not need great knowledge of programming to launch a business that relies on it. The founders of Bloomberg LP all had very good knowledge of the financial sector and the technology used in it. They knew the shortcomings in the solutions provided to trading desks. But whether any of them could themselves construct a Bloomberg Terminal is, in retrospect, irrelevant.
They had industry-specific knowledge of the problem they were attempting to solve. Unless you have worked in an industry, as a programmer you are unlikely to understand the true nature of the problems in that industry. And thus, you will not know what opportunities there might be for innovation. Is this the so-called "non-technical founder"?
Bloomberg wants to know how to build things in software. He wants to stimulate New York's economy with more software development industry reducing reliance on the finacial industry alone. It's interesting if nothing else.
Mike graduated with an EE degree in 1964. He worked his way up from an entry level job on Wall St to overseeing equity trading / running information systems at Salomon. There was never any reason for him to code given the programmers working for him. It was a way less accessible skill in the 80s.
My concern is that Bloomberg is just looking for money. He may have no interest in how a computer works.
If he could code, what sort of programs would he write?
For example, with respect to the desktop and the web, many "coders" write programs that are a constant game of manipulation of naive end users. The moral issues raised in programming are seemingly endless. It's relatively rare to find a programmer with a social conscience. Mainly because few people with a social conscience know how to program.
Would people like Bloomberg bring a greater sense of social conscience to programming? Or would they worsen the situation?
On the flipside, having more people be more familiar with programming might reduce the amount of manipulation that is possible. More people might start demanding and reading source code. That could be a positive force.