Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submitlogin

I'll never forget this exchange I had with a CS professor:

Me: ... but, in the future, everyone will learn how to program. Neal: no, in the future, no one will need to know how to program.

I suspect Neal was right, though I dislike the idea strongly.

Anyhow, machines will probably prove to be smarter with such details. So accountants can likely just shift the cost to another column. (Sorry to anyone who can conceivably be replaced by a robot.)

Not to sound like such a douche: parallelism, concurrency, distributed process; can raw human "wet" computing ever pretend to compete with clean binary process in such gambles?




> Neal: no, in the future, no one will need to know how to program

Already true if you defined 'programming' as 'wiring up plugboards' or 'punching cards to feed into a mainframe'.

If you define 'programming' as 'telling non-sentient machines what to do in a way that they will actually execute your intentions' then not even developing human-level AI will kill programming. After all, why would a human-level AI be chained to the task of playing DOOM with me just because I decide I want to play DOOM?

-----




Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: