15 ms·

Please Don't Become Anything, Especially Not A Programmer

• neokya 14y ago
  I learned to code from your book Zed. I was disappointed by Jeff's article (Who is usually a nice man). You wrote this post at a right time with right points. My appreciation is triple-folded. Take a bow, Zed.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    Thanks, it's actually something I've been meaning to write about for a while, so Jeff just gave me a good reason. :-)
    • Odrix 14y ago
      Thanks Zed! I think that was pretty insightful. You brought a whole new perspective to the "please don't learn to code" issue. Jeff may not even be aware of the reasons behind his resentment, but now he wouldn't need a shrink to find out would he? Thanks!
    • m_for_monkey 14y ago
      I think you have already written an even better answer; when I read Jeff's article I immediately thought of this: http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html
    • vph 14y ago
      Great respect for your works, in particular the books. But it's sad to see not much progress (at least on the public side) of Mongrel2.
    • dodava 14y ago
      In another reply you questioned people's level of English comprehension. Did you read anything but the headline of Jeff's post? If so, you are the one with the reading comprehension problem because your entire rant has nothing to do with any of the points Jeff was making in his post. Of course that doesn't matter to you. You got to create a sensational headline and a fiery rant to please your fanboys.
• benatkin 14y ago
  There were some excellent criticisms posted earlier, but this is the one that pretty much overshadows the original post. Thank you, Zed.
• bryze 14y ago
  I really don't know why people worry so much about this. I don't think dissuading people from entering any field is surprising. Generally, experts in a field want passionate, talented people, because that's how the field will likely advance, which is what any good expert hopes for. If we scare off the dispassionate before they have a chance to burden the field, great. This is exactly the purpose of "weeder" courses in college. Edit: Well, pardon me for having an unpopular opinion. I have no intention of apologizing. Perhaps your opinions will change when you see the damage that incompetence can cause.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    Well, these "weeder" courses actually make for intellectually lazy education. Rather than study how best to teach a subject so everyone has a chance regardless of initial ability, you design curriculum that only works for naturals. But, ultimately, it's not the teacher's right to decide who's "passionate" enough or not. Trust me, if my teachers had any say in my success I'd be digging ditches.
    • B-Con 14y ago
      > Well, these "weeder" courses actually make for intellectually lazy education. I disagree. In order to do well at a subject in an academic setting, you need the upper classmen to be very comfortable with the basics. "Weeder" courses are always (almost always?) in subjects that are basic foundations for the field. The idea is that if you can't pass it, the things that build on it aren't going to make it any easier. As well, they ingrain a good understanding of the content in those who do pass it. Since schools tailor content difficulty to the ability of the students, lower ability levels of the upper classmen mean that the class difficulty needs to be lowered. If you're in a competitive college that's trying to teach as much as possible, it definitely their call to only filter people with a certain level of ability. Unless you're at a hyper-elite very aggressive school, I doubt that the content is only designed for an ability level that comes only to naturals. It's generally just designed for "people who can do it well". (Obviously, naturals make up a decent portion of it.)
      • 14y ago
• octopus 14y ago
  Great post. You should never identify yourself with what you do. You could do anything you want if are passionate about something, ignore everyone claims you can't.
  • mb_72 14y ago
    Sure you can do anything you want, but the better you are at something: a) the more enjoyable and rewarding it is for you AND b) the more efficiently you can generate something useful for others; with any activity, there is an opportunity cost That said, learning coding is self-limiting activity; those who enjoy it and have a knack for it will continue, those that don't will stop. My only concern, which is a general one, is that humans are pretty good at self-deception, especially in subjective areas. Look at how many people think they can sing, for example. The shattering of their illusions has been turned into entertainment, and for many people this is obviously traumatic. I have a completely non-technical friend trying to learn javascript. When I asked why, she told me she wanted to write games. As her friend, should I save her feelings and say nothing (and let her squander her time and end up confused and frustrated) or try and reason with her (and then look like a killjoy for seemingly criticising her efforts)? Currently I've taken the former option, but still agonise over whether this is the 'right' way or not.
    • octopus 14y ago
      When I start learning programming I was "completely non-technical" too. Give your non-technical friend a few years and you will see what she can do if she is really interested in making games. I bet you were in the same situation at some point in your life. If you want to give her a constructive advice tell her that she can use JavaScript with Unity3D for e.g. I bet you will be amazed at how productive one can became when one is passionated about something.
      • mb_72 14y ago
        Certainly, one's early experience skews one's perceptions - I was 10 or 11 when I was 'non-technical', my friend is 35 (and, knowing her pretty well, her skills are definitely not in the coding area). Thanks for the tip, I'll pass it on to her.
• bignoggins 14y ago
  out of all the posts on HN right now about this, this one is by far the most insightful.
  • czzarr 14y ago
    meh they're all about defending their own piece of meat. Sacha talks about his book, zedshaw talks about his books.
    • zedshaw 14y ago
      Damn straight, because I actually care about this stuff. I mean, for all the talk on here about "passion" y'all sure do hate it when people actually are passionate.
      • czzarr 14y ago
        you could be talking about this stuff and be passionate about it without talking about your books. I understand why you do though.
        • zedshaw 14y ago
          But, I'm passionate about my books. There's nothing wrong with being proud of the things you do. Thinking that you have to never tout yourself is just a form of self-loathing really.
      • cbs 14y ago
        Zed, I think you're making the same mistake I did when I started reading hacker news. Passion means willingness to work your hands to the bone for the startup. Nobody here actually gives a shit about the craft itself. The only aspect of a professional discipline worth being passionate about it its ability to deliver the pie in the sky.
  • vibrunazo 14y ago
    Of all the posts pointing what Jeff's flaw in logic was. The one post attacking his person instead, saying he's just a mindless bully that should be ignored. Is the most insightful?
• adir1 14y ago
  Actually, my feeling is that you misunderstood Jeff. He makes a great point - we can't all be programmers, world needs people with all kinds of skills.
  • WiseWeasel 14y ago
    Just because we can't all be programmers doesn't mean we shouldn't all learn to code to any extent.
  • tolmasky 14y ago
    "We can't all learn how to read, the world needs people with all kinds of skills." It is perfectly possible to both learn programming and also have other skills. Who knows, maybe you'll be able to do something crazy like apply lessons from one field to another.
  • GuiA 14y ago
    The way I interpreted Jeff's post is that as hackers, we tend to see have a very skewed view of the world, and that we believe our tools (programming) are the only way to fix problems, and that everyone should learn how to use them. Jeff's point is that while certain tools (writing, arithmetic, etc.) are indeed of extremely relevant use no matter what you do, programming doesn't fall in that category, and anyone arguing that all should learn to code regardless of what they do is falling in that fallacy. (i'm not saying I agree or disagree with that, that's just the way I perceived the post. That being said, Zed's post, especially the last paragraph, is of great value.)
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    I'm sure he'll write a follow-up clarifying what he said so that he's not guilty of saying anything.
    • demetris 14y ago
      That’s the trick. You say one thing, then say another thing. The other thing kind of negates the first thing you said, so, by repeating the recipe, in a short while you have said everything about your topics and you have also said nothing. Not all writers are like that of course.
• ctdonath 14y ago
  http://xkcd.com/1053/ http://xkcd.com/1053/
• alecbenzer 14y ago
  The part at the end was just fantastic, and really sound advice for pretty much anyone. But, I think people are sort of misunderstanding Jeff's post. I didn't get the impression that he was trying to dissuade kids from learning how to code in some kind of effort to keep his uniqueness as a programmer. I think the point was just that this whole _everybody_ should learn how to code thing is a little odd. If you want to code because you think it's cool and you want to become a good coder, then great, learn to code. But I think Jeff's point is that we shouldn't make coding out to be this essential skill that absolutely everybody should learn. If you weren't otherwise inclined to learn to code, don't do it just because someone told you you should. Not that I completely agree with that sentiment either, I guess. One of the top comments by Fuzz [1] on that github gist is a pretty good tl;dr I think: "Saying people should not learn how to code is like saying people should not learn how to speak a second language." I'm sure learning a second language is fun, but I get annoyed when people try and make it seem like it's absolutely vital to do so. [1] https://github.com/fuzz https://github.com/fuzz
  • icebraining 14y ago
    I'm sure learning a second language is fun, but I get annoyed when people try and make it seem like it's absolutely vital to do so. I'm guessing you're a native English speaker? Because I can tell you that in many parts of the world, learning a second language is essential if you want a decent job and access to the vast amounts of knowledge, culture and people that the Internet provides.
    • alecbenzer 14y ago
      I suppose I didn't consider that -- yes, I am a native English speaker.
      • icebraining 14y ago
        I didn't mean it as a criticism - it's easy to overlook what we take for granted, and I'm no exception. But where I live, I notice very clearly the difficulties and disadvantages that not knowing English has, and even being able to read is not enough: my parents, for example, are certainly not uneducated people, yet they're not able to fully understand much of spoken English, which means they're restricted to subtitled content - fewer films, no free university lectures, no Khan Academy, almost no podcasts, etc. And I'm in an European country!
• sp332 14y ago
  "How can you learn C programming if you don't read K&R!" What's a better way to learn C than reading K&R?
  • GFKjunior 14y ago
    I tried K&R but could not get into it after reading the first 2 chapters a few times over. I was close to giving up on C till I picked up "C Programming a Modern Approach" and Zed's "Learn C The Hard Way". They were phenomenal. After finishing them I tried K&R again but was still not digging the style so I did a few of the exercises but not much else. I get that it's a classic but it was written before I was born so I didn't find it all that well written. That's just my opinion though.
• samvelst 14y ago
  I wonder how many (and which) CS texts are recommended simply because they are considered "classics." As a beginner there is really no way to tell how good a book will be before reading it without relying on the word of others.
• matthew-wegner 14y ago
  I have a programmer friend, and his website simply says: I make computers do what I want. Often people pay me to make computers do what they want instead. Lately unity3d.com is doing that a lot. (http://lucasmeijer.com/ http://lucasmeijer.com/)
• stiff 14y ago
  While the "Don't Become Anything" thing is valuable (after all it's a thousands of years old insight that can be found in Buddhism for example), the article looks pretty much like a straw man to me. The original post was arguing that "coding" isn't an essential life skill in the way for example reading is and that massive amounts of new coders might not be that good for the world. How is this refuted here in any way? Where is this resentment thing pulled from?
  • dmauro 14y ago
    Yeah, I'm a little surprised this bit of vitriol made it to the top of HN.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    I'm not refuting his statement that programming is or is not a life skill. My opinion on the matter is demonstrated in my work. I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. Even though he doesn't say those very words, that's what he's saying. The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. Consider it a guess about Jeff, and a general message about other people who feel the same way.
    • prayag 14y ago
      >I'm refuting his statement that other people should not become programmers, and that only a few chosen few should. But Atwood didn't say that. All he said was that it's a trade like Plumbing and not a life skill like being able to read. >The resentment comes from me talking to many programmers who say the same thing. But programmers DON'T mostly say that. In fact, I had a very animated discussion with Randy Stross of New York Times at YCombinator where EVERY programmer around was arguing that programming has become an important life skill and should be taught in high school. Of course, this is anecdotal but even the recent articles refuting this on HN shows most programmers are for everyone learning programming. I don't know you as well as other members of the community here but this article seems to be really harsh and doesn't even touch the argument that Atwood made in his article.
• dkrich 14y ago
  You are missing the point of his post which I believe is valid- that programming in and of itself is nothing but a skill to carry out a task. He isn't dissuading beginners from learning to code or suggesting that people shouldn't. Just that you shouldn't learn to code just for the sake of knowing how to code. I get it. There are worse hobbies you can have and it can solve problems and spread information, etc., etc. The point is that programming should be viewed as a means to an end. Too much focus is put on coding as an end goal and writers on TechCrunch whom I suspect have never coded anything in their lives talk about how learning to code is the hot new thing and everybody should be doing it. I think it is far more useful to learn a variety of subjects, figure out what it is you want to do, and if building software is the way to achieve it, then go learn to code. But learning to code well is an enormous investment of time, so to learn to code you are choosing not to do other things that could be far more valuable to you. A lot of people start with learning to code and then look everywhere for a problem to solve with their new skill set. That is the reverse of how problems should be solved. The technology is irrelevant. The skills are irrelevant. The problem is what should dictate the work.
  • bmj 14y ago
    I just re-read Mr. Atwood's post, and I'm not sure that's what I get out of it. He talks about people learning to code to do it for a living, not just doing it as a hobby/learning experience. Though he starts by saying code is just one skill among many, his arguments centers around people doing as a career ("we don't need more bad programmers" and "programmers should be writing less code"). I suspect that really, Jeff and Zed might actually agree that people should be free to tinker, and resources should be available for them to learn to tinker (see Jeff's plumbing analogy--would the Jeff Atwood of plumbing tell me not to learn how to fix my leaky faucet because there are already enough bad plumbers in the world?). Certainly, some people learn to code for the wrong reasons, and they see every problem as a program to be written. But hey, if they want to do that in their basement (or even as part of their job), let them--we've all had to learn one way or another that the world doesn't work that way.
• chris_wot 14y ago
  I agree with him largely. Then he goes and wrecks his argument by stating that the "Gang of Four" is an "antiquated tome". I can't work out where this resentment business is coming from here.
  • roguecoder 14y ago
    It's 17 years old, dry and contextless. It can be useful, but it'd be way down on the list of books I'd hand to someone and not only because I'm assuming anyone starting out today is programming in Python, Ruby or JavaScript. It certainly isn't necessary reading to be a good programmer, by any means.
    • chris_wot 14y ago
      So what it it's 17 years old? I read it, but it's not contextless, nor is it dry. It has plenty of context - albieit in an older form - the creating of a word processor. You can still grasp this today! In fact, the information on Factory patterns is still used today, same with Singletons and a raft of other items - including Prototypes, which is what Javascript uses. Please note that I didn't say that I'd provide it to a newbie coder. I merely pointed out that it's not an "antiquated tome". It's very definitely useful, and has been so for some time and remains that way. In fact, I actually think that Zed nailed it on many points in that article. I find it very interesting that my comment was downvoted merely because someone disagreed. There was nothing inflammatory about my response, nor was there anything factually incorrect. I offered a differing opinion, of which someone decided they would hit the downvote button, instead of doing what they should do - post a response.
• stefanve 14y ago
  It is funny to see how different people interpreted the original post. For me it was about coding being a craft and not a necessary skill like arithmetics, reading or a secondary languages. (This is true not only for coding but for nearly every craft there is.) So I think it was more a post against the "Every one should learn to code, for a better world" movement (if there is such a thing) than a keep on doing what you do and stay away from my craft post. While I thing bloomberg should be able to do what ever he wants in his free time. I agree with the assessment that it will be highly unlikely that leaning to code will make a difference in his daily work. So while this reaction was a entertaining read I think it was reacting to something that wasn't be said.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    Craft requires skill and the two are deeply intertwined. In opinion, if you think that programming is some mystical "craft" that can't be taught, then you simply just don't know enough about it.
    • stefanve 14y ago
      Again funny how people read different things from the same text :-) . That's not what I was trying to say. On the contrary to master a craft you will need to learn several different skills and a craft is something thing that you can learn, but more importantly must learn and study to master. I'm not saying this should be out of reach for most people as is any craft, if you want to learn something you should be able to and I applaud any afford to make it more affordable and easier . but contrary to reading and arithmetic etc it is not something you must learn to be a productive member to society. This is true not only for coding but for any craft, be it plumbing, sewing carpentry, Medical professions etc.
• decklin 14y ago
  I need some sort of AI filter for HN that will not only hide blog posts from a particular domain, but hide other people's blog posts "responding" to those blog posts and then submitted as separate articles.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    You should, then give it to me so I can sort out the comments that don't add to the discussion, but keep the replies telling people they aren't adding to the discussion.
    • jilebedev 14y ago
      > comments that don't add to the discussion Atwood: > don't advocate learning to code just for the sake of learning how to code. Shaw: > Never listen to people who try to make beginners feel like losers The OP here is non sequitur at best and strawman at worst. Certainly not a model for constructive contribution to a conversation. The entire affair from here seems to be a nearly-pointless dramatic back-and-forth between loud people. I read HN for critical insight, not bickering.
      • zedshaw 14y ago
        Actually, a strawman argument is quoting things out of context to make your point.
        • rauljara 14y ago
          No. A strawman is when you give your opponent an argument other than the one s/he is making and refute that instead of the real argument. In other words, you created a strawman and knocked him down, claiming victory while the real man remained standing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
          • mitsche 14y ago
            Quoting out of context is in there as well.
• jumpbug 14y ago
  Really, because of resentment? Really, sometimes I think people read way too much into people's commentary. How do these petty war of words make it to the top of Hacker News anyway.
• cletus 14y ago
  Great post. I have an awful lot of respect for Zed Shaw and what he's done (and, no, not for "Rails is a Ghetto" but for his directed learning programming books, which IMHO are probably the best approach for newcomers). I'm disappointed that Jeff has taken what is essentially an elitist and exclusionary view. Programming is not a zero sum game. Every new programmer isn't a threat to your livelihood and your existence (unless, you know, you suck at your job). There's a lot of wisdom in the last two paragraphs. Another facet of this is those (typically young) programmers who treat any criticism of their ideas to criticisms of themselves as people (of course this isn't unique to programming). You need to get over that as it is an impediment to becoming more proficient at your chosen craft. Your work isn't your identity. Don't treat it as such.
  • demian 14y ago
    I don't believe this post gets the real reason why Jeff said what he said. In my opinion, Jeff projected some of his issues with the current state of the software development profession (mainly the "hack fist, ask questions later" aproach). The idea that bothered him wasn't born from elitism, identity, or the fact that people were learning to code, but the idea that, to him, this makes this issue worse. It's true that he is making an implicit leap from "everyone should learn to code" to "everyone should be a programmer". I personally don't agree, but maybie he has a good argument. Maybie he should try to explain that connection a little further.
    • yo-mf 14y ago
      I realize that you meant to say "hack first", but I think hack fist is pretty appropriate as well. Also, it would make a killer heavy metal band name.
      • peejaybee 14y ago
        "Hack fist" is what a "brogrammer" uses to pound out some code.
    • saraid216 14y ago
      Except that Jeff would still be wrong on this count. If more people were trying to learn how to program, there would be a lot more effort devoted to figuring out how to teach coding better.
• rmATinnovafy 14y ago
  I've always believed that one should not use labels. They are self imposed limits. Writing computer programs is not something out of the ordinary. Sure, it is applied math, but it is not quantum physics. I want people to learn. The more people know to code, the more innovation we will all enjoy. There is a generation that is growing up with the power of computing. This is a first in history. We (as a race) will be able to do so many things thanks to it. But we need people to learn. Good/bad code, its all the same. All it matters is that the ideas are implemented. Great post Mr. Shaw. I've always looked up tp you, as a person and coder. Thank you.
  • Produce 14y ago
    >Sure, it is applied math, but it is not quantum physics. Quantum physics, and all other forms of physics are applied math.
    • rmATinnovafy 14y ago
      What we call physics is not math. Math is how we interpret them. Just like code is how we interpret ideas in a manner that a computer can process. Quantum physics is not even aptly defined because no one understands them. Sure, we may have some insight into how some things work at the quantum level but we have not a clue. My point, which I reason you missed, is that people find math hard yet they manage to learn how to program. These days, one can make a reasonable living as a coder without knowing much math. I'm not even going to pretend to be a genius, not even smart. But I can sure understand that programming is not what fellow engineers make it out to be. It is neither Quantum physics nor hard. It is, in my opinion, simple (and beautiful). Discouraging people from learning how to code is akin to discouraging people from learning how to speak. In a world where the Internet is the only mass medium of communication, knowing how to code enables freedom of thought, and speech. A freedom we cannot let die.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• rohit89 14y ago
  I really don't see what the fuss is all about. It is just like any other field. Programming is not an easy task. People are not suddenly going to turn into a Linus, a Knuth or a Guido. IMO if you feel threatened because more people are learning to code, you're probably not good enough in the first place. Additionally, since when have people listened to what you should or shouldn't do? Just because Jeff says that you shouldn't code won't stop the ones who really want to. The inverse is true as well.
• Kilimanjaro 14y ago
  Like everything in life, only 1 out of 100 will excel at what they do, 90 will drop out before they even start and 20 will become average coders (yeah I suck at math). But we all have to try even if we fail, the world needs that unique specimen to move us all forward.
• jwingy 14y ago
  The only thing all these counterpoint blog posts are proving is that while programming may or may not be important for everyone to learn in the future, being able to hold and understand cogent arguments most certainly is. I've read at least two blog posts today making counter arguments to points the op wasn't even making (op being Jeff). I have a feeling a big part of it is the blogger proclivity to make link bait headlines that are somewhat related at best, deceptive at worst, giving rise to knee jerk reactions.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    Maybe if I learned to code when I was younger I'd be better at logic arguments. But, sadly, I'm a human and not a computer so I tend to write like a human.
    • nkassis 14y ago
      See this is the crux of what I thought this movement was about. Logical and Algorithmic thinking is what people should be getting from learning to code. This is a fundamental thing like critical thinking which schools have a really hard time making kids learn. Plus I have to agree with you that today I wouldn't recommend my path to others trying to learn to program. It wouldn't make any sense.
      • Produce 14y ago
        I have to disagree with the sentiment that programming has anything to do with logical thinking. You can write awesome programs on feeling alone. For example, when I'm debugging, I don't think, I simply let my mind explore the catacombs and the solution bubbles up from my subconscious. The benefit which logic brings to the table is being able to communicate your ideas clearly. Critical thinking is useful but it's not a golden hammer and, in this community, is vastly overrated. Balance between thinking and feeling, on the other hand, is of vital importance.
        • keithpeter 14y ago
          "For example, when I'm debugging, I don't think, I simply let my mind explore the catacombs and the solution bubbles up from my subconscious." http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5896.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5896.html Get a copy from your nearest library. You are operating in the same mode as most creative mathematicians. My girlfriends at University had to cope with a shorthand pad and pen on the bedside, and being totally ignored for 24 hours at a stretch when the ideas came. The subconscious only works when fully primed by the way. You must know your code very well for the links to 'bubble up' like that.
• billjings 14y ago
  This was a good post, but the entire thing may not be worth as much as the first sentence. So much of learning is about how you approach the state of ignorance in yourself and others.
• j45 14y ago
  "Never listen to people who try to make beginners feel like losers" Zing. A great litmus test that's simple and has results too. Too many programming communities, including the most popular web frameworks that are the be all and end all to everything have elements of this. It's not something to be proud of to feel better about yourself by putting others down, telling others what they do, or how they do it, or who they ultimately are isn't as capable.
  • zedshaw 14y ago
    It's not just programming. I run into this with guitarists too. I mostly play for my own enjoyment, but I constantly run into guitarists who get off on treating beginners like crap. Even in music schools they do this, and for some weird reason they think that this is how you make students awesome. Ultimately, these kinds of behaviors in teachers don't make better students, they just kill off the more fragile ones who might have been awesome with some help.
    • wilmoore 14y ago
      Correct. It isn't just programming. You actually summarized it well when you wrote that people need to do other things (besides programming or besides whatever it is they identify so closely with) so that they don't resent others for "sliding" into their world. People with more than one passion will generally find less time to resent and more time to educate :)
    • j45 14y ago
      Really true Zed. Was trying to keep it relevant to hnews as the programming framework/language fanatics are everywhere, including here from time to time :)
    • neokya 14y ago
      Exactly. I know some programming by now. I am planning to buy a guitar to play with 'Hotel California'
• dageshi 14y ago
  The Drama.
• gfodor 14y ago
  Nail on head. This would be the part of my comment where I try to add something, but I'd be wasting my breath; Zed already said everything that needs to be said here.
  • fictorial 14y ago
    Would it not suffice to click the little up arrow and carry on then? :-)
• alexobenauer 14y ago
  Here's the first submission to this argument that I can get behind. Well said.
• jeffpersonified 14y ago
  As a guy currently in the midst of learning how to code, and doing so with Codecademy (it's been a fantastic tool, and made the process far less painful), I really appreciate this viewpoint. More than that, it's encouraging. I don't intend to get a job as a developer. I don't convince myself that I'll ever get hired because of my capacity with RoR. I do, however, hope that I can continue to become a better communicator with the developing community, understand the basic parameters around different languages, and hopefully build some things myself... and have fun doing so. Indeed, as PG has said in the past, learning to code may be more valuable in the coming years than having an MBA (in certain fields). Code isn't going away. It's a language that my kids will grow up bilingual in, and I hope to help guide them into it as the first generation immigrant that I am. Hell, my skills are elsewhere, and I'm more than fine with that.
• joedev 14y ago
  "These resentful programmers also hate that the new kids seem to be skipping all of their favorite indoctrinations" Reminds me of the old ditty: "Flowers are red young man Green leaves are green There's no need to see flowers any other way Than they way they always have been seen"
• B-Con 14y ago
  He really missed Jeff's point. This was a terrible piece. > Currently, Jeff Attwood has a piece where he tells you to not learn to code. I wonder if he's going to tell his kids they shouldn't learn to code when they want to become just like Daddy? Probably not. He'll gleefully run over and show them how to code and tell them it's so much fun and that they should all do it and it's the best thing ever! But, of course, your kids shouldn't learn to code, and you shouldn't, and your friends shouldn't, just Jeff and his kids should. No, that's not what Jeff said. Jeff was arguing against learning programming casually if you have no logical extension for your knowledge. He was coming at it from more of a "don't spend time learning specialized skill sets you won't need" stand-point. This piece makes it out as if Jeff were openly attacking anybody who wanted to program. If you read Jeff's post, the title is obviously an exaggeration, as are most of his blog post titles. I don't agree with Jeff's point, but this piece made it out to be a wild exaggeration that it wasn't.
  • parfe 14y ago
    Perhaps Jeff should have chosen a better title. Perhaps Jeff should have chosen a better example than of a man late in his career path holding a highly specialized job an ultra-majority of people will never hold. I'm sure Bloomberg would have loved to know how to code back in his trading days. Of course Jeff can't see a reason a financial trader would want to trade.
    • protomyth 14y ago
      Bloomberg is not exactly a babe in the woods where technology is concerned. http://ecommerce.hostip.info/pages/111/Bloomberg-L-P-EARLY-HISTORY.html http://ecommerce.hostip.info/pages/111/Bloomberg-L-P-EARLY-H...
• j_baker 14y ago
  You see, I'm proud to say I am the proto-enabler of the meme that everyone can learn to code (not Codecademy, or however you spell it). I don't mean to disparage the good things Zed has done in helping new people learn to code, but am I the only one who is a bit put off with the narcissism here? I mean, Zed is hardly the first person to encourage non-programmers to program, or to write a book to teach non-programmers to program. Regardless, I don't think Zed's point is mutually exclusive to Jeff's. It sounds to me as though Zed is saying "Everyone can learn to program", while Jeff is saying "Yes, but that doesn't mean that everyone should learn to program". I think these two ideas can coexist.
  • josephcooney 14y ago
    You certainly weren't alone there re: the over-the-top narcissism, and seems like massive disrespect to everyone involved in languages research for the last 40 years, which has attempted to make programming easier and more accessible. Alan Kay would be rolling in his grave if he were dead.
• Produce 14y ago
  Why does everyone pay so much attention to what people like Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky have to say? Looking at Jeff's resume, he has had all of two jobs in his professional life, one of which was given to him by himself. Joel's resume is similar, a few low profile jobs (MS was not notable back then) then one given to himself. From experience in the industry, it's pretty clear that programmers who stay in one spot for a long time are mediocre at best. Good developers move around a lot in order to work with a variety of people on a wide range of problems. Having an average job then starting a company does not automatically make one qualified to comment on anything. In terms of the complexity of the software owned by the companies they respectively own, seriously? One is an average-at-best bug tracker and the other is a message board. I don't intend to scoff at people's achievements, please don't take it that way - all I'm saying is that the pudding contains too little proof, IMHO. In short, I'll take Linus's or Shaw's opinion on a given software related subject over these guys' opinions any day of the week. They've produced valuable software and documentation, have worked on problems of a far larger scope and, IMO, are qualified to tell us what's better or worse. The lesson to take away from this is that if you start a company, blog about your opinions, you will be considered important. Capitalize on that if you're an idiot, otherwise, go and do something useful for humanity.
  • dbecker 14y ago
    Even if you generally trust Linus more than Jeff, on this particular issue people are criticizing Jeff for being too harsh on beginners. Linus is consistently a harsher critic than Jeff.
    • Produce 14y ago
      I never criticized Jeff for being harsh, I only used a logical fallacy (an inverse appeal to authority - what is this called?) to disclaim his opinions. In reality, I don't think that it's right to white-wash the issue and say that none of his opinions hold weight, that's simply not true. I do, however, think that his opinion is massively overrated since there is a correlation between being correct and having relevant experience in something. But that's just my opinion. Not to mention that they are harsh in different ways. Jeff is advocating being harsh to people who don't know what they're doing and admit as much. Linus grills people who step into his kitchen and don't know how to hold a knife. Apples and oranges.
• TheRevoltingX 14y ago
  This post makes way too many assumptions as to the causes of Jeff's post. Reminds of psychology, complete reach-around post.
• Legion 14y ago
  Can people please respond to the actual posts each other makes, and not just the titles of the posts? This blog post battlefield is strewn with the broken bodies of straw men.
• keithpeter 14y ago
  Disclaimer: I was so impressed with Learn Python the Hard Way that I bought the hardback in the hope that Shaw gets a beer out of it. I've made it to Ch 11 and will finish the course when I get my students through their maths exams. PS: Zed, magstep3 in TeX, please, I need glasses as it is. Is it possible that there are degrees of code writing? I publish my humble Web site using some bash scripts I hacked up to generate pages from markdown text then to generate the index and lftp the lot up to my Web server space. That is coding, but it is not software engineering or industrial strength. The system probably only makes sense to me. I bodge together R scripts that produce interactive 2d plots I can use in maths teaching. Again not engineering but useful. I'd like to be able to hack up some small apps for Ubuntu, just silly front ends for things. The 'developer story' as Shuttleworth puts it is not too far ahead yet, so I'll have to get my head around Python/Glade. I'm reading my way through the Pyroom code and scratching my head a lot. I think that is getting closer to trade school coding but I'm no credible threat to a proper coder and have no intention of being. Does HN collectively think there is a valid space for end user coding as in the BASIC days? If you want to get philosophical, is there space for bricollage as well as architecture?
  • saraid216 14y ago
    Quality programming is an extremely broad range, yes. It's not really sufficient to say there are degrees: some forms of excellent quality are completely orthogonal and just can't be properly compared to each other. And yes, there is definitely a valid space for end user coding. The key is mostly in remembering that an end user cannot and should not be expected to produce something competent, or even palatable.
  • chipsy 14y ago
    Professional programming's only been around for 2-3 generations. I don't think there's any hard evidence for the skills being limited to a particular domain - rather the opposite, we keep discovering new things to apply code to. It used to be that programming was seen just as "large scale number crunching" and even top people in the computer industry didn't see greater application(e.g. the "only 5 computers in the world" quote often attributed to Tom Watson). We've progressed quite a ways from that point, and nowadays I think we've reached an era where no programmer can be expected to know all the programming knowledge that exists. There are too many different domains and specialties. And that, in turn, means that as a society we need yet more programmers to cover all possibilities and make more discoveries. I think "skill" is very tangential to the discussion, because one of the domains that has ample room to progress is language design and engineering techniques. When people online toss around phrases like "best practice" and "professional-grade" you can take it with a grain of salt - most code barely works, we don't actually know how to do it right, and we spend most of our time on concerns that are bikeshedding, not order-of-magnitude productivity enhancers. We're still catching up with some ideas from the 70s about how to build software. Instead just be "humble yet courageous." If you don't know if it's right, marshal all your available defenses - source control, backups, comments, references, IRC channels etc. - and then go try it. It's an experiment, and it probably won't take long to figure out if it has problems.
• hanibash 14y ago
  Zed I think your self-identity point is spot on. Time and time again we see that the greatest minds don't pigeon hole themselves into a single category. Paul Graham says it himself -- "What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers. Along with composers, architects, and writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make good things." Anyone who is a maker should be interested in learning to code. I strongly believe that although programming is a specialized discipline now, in the coming years we will see that people who have skills in both coding and other fields will come out the furthest ahead. Telling beginners not to learn how to code is like telling people they shouldn't learn how to paint or learn to play an instrument. Coding is a beautiful and fulfilling activity which no one should be barred from.
• dimmuborgir 14y ago
  Zed Shaw is the Nietzsche of hackers (and beyond)! Some Nietzsche's quotes I think relevant to this post and Zed's philosophy in general: "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." "Everything is human, all too human." "I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of personal integrity." "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." "Who cares if I am right! I am much too right. And he who laughs best today will also laugh last."
• singular 14y ago
  There's a funny juxtaposition between Zed Shaw's rather excellent books and what just comes across as nasty, personal, bullying comments and attacks on people. In fact, around a year ago, amidst serious worries in my life, I read some typically Shaw-ian stuff which essentially utterly disuaded me from wanting to try and do things out in the public arena should he, or people like him, feel like attacking me for producing code that he/they didn't feel was all that good. It was quite depressing. The irony is that I actually recently recommended LPtHW to a friend who I want to help out potentially get a new career. I love the idea of quality education being free for everyone via the web, and I love the idea that you don't have to be some elite programmer to do it. I think Zed's approach to this is so spot on. But how about toning down some of the nastiness? You're a great programmer and now, author/educator Zed, but seriously man.
  • npsimons 14y ago
    Anyone else think that maybe this http://oppugn.us/posts/1272050135.html http://oppugn.us/posts/1272050135.html is why Mark Pilgrim committed infosuicide?
• dansul 14y ago
  Great post. I especially like the last two paragraphs.
• derekorgan 14y ago
  noob
• drawkbox 14y ago
  Valve has what they call a 'T-shaped model employee'. One who is 'broad range generalist' good at a wide swath of things, then really an expert at a few key skills with 'deep expertise in one area'. http://i.imgur.com/SAg9a.png http://i.imgur.com/SAg9a.png There is nothing wrong with someone learning to code but that might not become their deep expertise. However people understanding abstractions and the skill it takes to code is a good thing. To take Atwood's analogy, people might use coding the way I use plumbing, I did it just enough to know I need to call someone when I need some plumbing, others might become plumbers. I actually think that is what he was trying to say. Programming will not become everyone's 'deep expertise'.
• TommyDANGerous 14y ago
  Great article. I agree, I really don't like it when others try to pull people down. We should be encouraging because the more we bring each other up, the better life will be. I just started learning how to code as well and it's tough and a lot of work, at times you are super frustrated and a harsh remark at the right time could dampen one's spirit.
• ashray 14y ago
  You guys are so naive. The only reason Jeff doesn't want everyone to program is so that we can have the benefits we have right now. There's currently an industry shortage, it's awesome for programmers right, left and center. We get better perks, better benefits, better pay. There are definitely benefits of having more programmers, or people familiar with programming, however there are two caveats: 1. With more programmers there will be a much larger signal to noise ratio. Good programmers will become much harder to find. 2. It'll drive down the value of each programmer, regardless of industry quality. The same thing happened to the aviation industry in India. There were pilot shortages, then they found that pilots get paid really well. Everyone and his cousin became a pilot, boom - quality and more importantly perks/pay went down. Now there's a pilot surplus (of mostly inexperienced n00bs) in the country. These guys are all unemployed and the airlines are all talking about "how difficult it is to find good and experienced pilots". But the pay has gone down.. So yeah, nobody learn how to program PLEASE. I want to be the only programmer.
• georgieporgie 14y ago
  Ugh. I'm sick of this ridiculous debate. Further, this was a horribly written, inflammatory, wildly up-its-own-ass misinterpretation of the original.
• mwd_ 14y ago
  Paul Buchheit wrote a good essay on identity called "I am nothing" which is closely related to "don't become anything": http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.ca/2011/08/i-am-nothing.html http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.ca/2011/08/i-am-nothing.html I think that's the best part of this article. The criticism of Jeff Atwood's post is off the mark. Atwood wasn't being elitist, he was pointing out flaws in the theory that everybody ought to "learn to code" at a superficial level by putting in a few hours learning Javascript. For many people, more abstract problem solving skills would be more useful and the technical details will change or be forgotten. The criticism of K&R C and so on also rubbed me the wrong way. That is a great, concise book that is still relevant in a lot of ways. If you're really good with high-level languages like Javascript or Ruby you might be able to do some good work but, all else being equal, you're more limited than somebody who also understands a wider array of programming concepts and more fundamental aspects of how computers work.
• mbeswetherick 14y ago
  I believe that Zed was striving for Zen in his post. As a college student and someone who read LPTHW, I'm quite happy to see this entry. I have seen the negative attitudes of many self-ascribed "programmers" in the CS department at my University. I feel like a lot of this comes from the point that Zed was making - the old dogs are upset because new people are circumventing how they learned to code. It's strange that some people hold so dearly to their old methods of learning, but I do feel like one must let go of that way of thinking if they wish to be happy. The new methods of learning are great and they usually don't cement anyone into thinking they're a "programmer." One of my best friends goes to RISD and he learned to code from LPTHW and he is one of the best coders I know (although I think his style is weird sometimes... but that's beside the point). What matters is he is making cool things and he is humble about it. People shouldn't be too attached to any one thing on this earth, it takes away from our complexity as humans. We have such boundless potential and I hate to see that get knocked down by people who are afraid of losing their identity as a "programmer." Those people are so much more than that too! Even if they read all of Knuth's literature and have built compilers, humans aren't robots, why should we act like them? We must let go of the identities that cause to inflict harm on people. Zed has come across as rather harsh in some of his writing, but this post is very beautiful. I'm not saying that Jeff is a bad guy, I'm just glad that Zed wrote this post. Hopefully in time we can all let go of the identity of being a programmer. Most of us use libraries built by other people that are so abstracted anybody could do it! And what's cool about the people who are building the gnarly libraries is they put it out for opensource - they want people to use it 8^) Don't be concerned with the bullies, go out there and have fun!
• crazy_eye 14y ago
  If Jeff's goal was to create a widespread dialog over a mostly unquestioned trend, he succeeded wildly.
  • rsanchez1 14y ago
    He just brought out all those bitter against everyone wanting to learn to code out of the woodwork. All those who wanted everyone to code in the first place are still here, still wanting everyone to learn to code.
• readme 14y ago
  Most of the things zed said here I agree with. What I don't agree with is his attitude toward classic programming books like k&r and GoF. Those books are gold, and I'm sorry, but if you want to master something you need to study the classics. Ask any academic. Lcthw is great for beginners but once you've read those you need to move on to the more serious stuff.
  • chris_wot 14y ago
    Someone, I suspect the same person, has been downvoting all the folks who don't find GoF and k&r and who are willing to say it. I think this is wrong. If you don't agree, please post a response. Don't hit the downvote button. These are valid comments, and while you might not agree they certainly add to the discussion.
    • readme 14y ago
      I wasn't aware. Can't be me because I can't down vote yet. My approach would have been to suggest the books, not scoff at those who haven't read them.
• dclowd9901 14y ago
  I'm all for conversation, but is anyone else getting tired of this predictable circlejerk of 1) Industry guy A says this in a blog post! 2) Industry guy B doesn't agree! So he writes a blog post arguing the opposite point. 3) Industry guy C is above this argument, so he posts a blog espousing a deeper philosophy on the matter. It seems noisy and totally counterproductive, and yet all 3 articles will inevitably show up on the front of HN. Hell, I'll even admit that I've bought into it a few times, but it's just getting a little old. It just smacks of a bunch of bloggers trying to leech off each others' hits.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• pbiggar 14y ago
  I like Zed, and I like Jeff. I dislike Jeff's article, and really like what Zed is saying about not letting people tell you not to become a programmer (or whatever you want). Well said. However, Zed did Jeff a real disservice - he put words into Jeff's mouth that he did not say. There are many people who do have that kind of resentment, and I see it all the time, but I can not see where he got that from Jeff's article (or any of Jeff's articles, in fact).
• readme 14y ago
  The attack zed makes here on jeff atwood is short sighted and unfair heckling. If you actually read jeff's article, he only argues that coding is not a fundamental skill like writing or arithmetic. From that, zed posits that jeff doesn't want your kids to program. Yeah zed, that's why he worked long and hard on stackoverflow. Speak for yourself next time.
• Tichy 14y ago
  Like the article. However, I am undecided if I will urge my son to get into coding. I will teach him, but does it really make for a great career? The one good thing about it seems to be that you can create some stuff with very little resources (not everything the world needs, though -yet, anyway). And yet I wonder if other professions are not more likely to lead to happiness. The often cited people interactions could be a factor, for example. Sure, programmers have clients and colleagues, but other jobs might have people interactions that are more emotional in nature. So how about you, would you urge your kids to become software developers? Poll time?
  • protomyth 14y ago
    When I was younger my Dad taught me how to fix the car. It was a skill that I never used professionally, but has served me quite well in college and beyond. Programming isn't an either or proposition. It is one of the many skills someone can learn throughout their life. I will teach my nephew how to code, just because it is cool. If it provides another window onto the world, cool. If not, it will be fun to show him how photocells and programming work. My biggest disagreement is the portrayal of plumbers in the original article. I learned how to wire a basement and build a photo lab in high school (want to take photography? well, see we need a place to develop film....) Every skill, well taught, teaches you a little more about the world. Don't be a snob about it.
• EzGraphs 14y ago
  Wow. Jeff's article was not nearly as silly or inflammatory as some of these responses. Zed's rants can be great fun and quite theatrical, but Jeff was not trying to stifle anyone and prevent from learning to program. He was critiquing the fact that coding is becoming an "end unto itself" rather than one means (among many) for solving problems. Just because one learns to code does not mean one will solve problems - they may create more. Conversely, someone can never learn to code and be amazingly effective solving problems through other means. I am a programmer and really enjoy programming and appreciate its effect on the modern world - but it is not an end unto itself.
• icco 14y ago
  Thank goodness. While I don't think everyone should learn to code, I totally agree that we need to support those who want to learn. Thank you Zed.
• freshhawk 14y ago
  This whole internet argument is a sad Fox News style ignorant pundit circus. No one differentiates between learning how computers work and learning what programming is and learning the craft of software development. There is a huge difference between learning math and becoming a mathematician. They just bounce between both meanings of "learn to code" and assume whichever supports their point at that moment. No one has mentioned that a lot of people probably can't realistically learn to code. There is actual research on this (start here: http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/ http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/). Before you debate something perhaps people should make a small attempt to be not completely ignorant of our current knowledge. So Zed, I'm a fan, but when you say "I'm proud to say I am the proto-enabler of the meme that everyone can learn to code". You are saying you are proud of propagating bullshit, which doesn't seem like you. It's nice and new agey feel good and everything, but it probably doesn't reflect reality. So Atwood waffles on the issue making no real point and then Zed attacks a strawman that only vaguely resembles what was actually said if you squint really hard. Meanwhile no one talks about the actually interesting facts like that there are a lot of people who have serious trouble learning to think in algorithms. Of course there are a whole bunch of learn to code startups who probably left that out of their pitch decks because snake oil sells better so that's not a surprise. If all you read is tech sector marketing material you don't really have a good grasp of reality after a while. And to those who are worried about an invasion of poorly educated and poorly trained anti-intellectual brogrammers? Firstly: I've only seen this argument from strawmen, not from anyone actually arguing it. Secondly: Well no shit. This is already happening. There is an incredible new technological tool, high rewards for skill with this tool and new methods of training people more quickly and efficiently than ever before. There will be more programmers out there. More programmers means worse programmers on average. This is what happens during booms. Combine that with the increased popularity of an anti-intellectual bent to attitudes about programming and it's awfully reminiscent of the patent medicine / snake oil boom when medicine was the hot new thing. This has happened to a lot of industries and somehow things end up better at the end of it. I know everyone thought that the tech industry would be the lone historical exception because we're all so damn smart, but that was a stupid thing to think. There is going to be a massive explosion of incompetent (more incompetent?) programmers and a significant lowering in code quality for a few decades, we're only at the beginning of the shitstorm. When it's over we might actually have a mature industry and have learned how to manage software projects which would be nice.
• nato1138 14y ago
  Ha. The title is so existentialist I just had up-vote the pathos.
• mkramlich 14y ago
  I think what Zed missed, and possibly Jeff as well, is that only a small percentage of people really have what it takes, brain-wise, to do programming. And not just to do programming but to not hate it. The intersection of those two things. And I'm not talking just about writing a simple recipe-like script. But really understanding how computers work, memory, networking, recursion, threads, etc. Just as only a small percentage of people have the right mental chops to do advanced math or physics, etc. Writing Hello World? Sure, just about anyone can "learn" to write that. Writing an operating system? No way in hell. You'd be surprised by what most people are like. Not us. Not the typical Hacker News type. Not geeks. But most people. Not saying they're dumb. They're just different. Really. Trust me. You'll understand, hopefully, after you've been on the planet a few decades in the real world.
  • marvin 14y ago
    I've heard this sentiment before, but to me it sounds like an incredibly arrogant glorification of computer programmers. How are the best computer people different from, say, the best doctors, mechanical engineers or industrial designers? Specialization and deep knowledge of a particular domain isn't unique to the IT industry.
• atarian 14y ago
  Interesting conversation between Zed and Jeff: http://twitter.com/#!/zedshaw/status/202471821264691200 http://twitter.com/#!/zedshaw/status/202471821264691200
• rsanchez1 14y ago
  I'm sure Isaac Newton would have resented the fact that calculus is so easy nowadays (at least the calculus required to understand his writing) that high school students have it on their curriculum. On second thought, he probably would have been delighted that even teens can use his work.
• tomdtpink 14y ago
  Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. Trolls kill HN. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. HN is ignorance. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Hackers are dead. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Staartup Junkies are just greedy cunts. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards. Long Live Neckbeards.
• kailashbadu 14y ago
  I can't believe Zed Shaw doesn't get it.
• hobin 14y ago
  The author completely missed the point. Never did anyone say "don't learn to code, even if you want to". Rather, what Jeff said could much better be interpreted as "don't just learn to code because it's the newest hype." That's really all there is to this issue.
• Proleps 14y ago
  I find it weird that people are arguing that the title isn't part of the original article. As far as I'm concerned "Please Don't Learn to Code" is his opening argument.
• npsimons 14y ago
  Sigh. I think Atwood really should have entitled his post "please write better software." Everyone seems to be trying to ad hom Atwood by shouting "elitist!" when all I think he wanted to do was discourage people from learning to program if all they were going to do was release shitty code. Trust me, as a maintenance programmer, I can sympathize. The world doesn't need more programmers; it needs better programmers. My take on "Please Don't Learn to Code": http://hardcorehackers.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2012/05/15#please http://hardcorehackers.com/cgi-bin/blosxom/2012/05/15#please Edit: Yes, this is my interpretation, and it's one way to look at it. Zed's is another (inflammatory) way of looking at it that reads in (wrongly) a whole lot more. I think Atwood is correct: for some people, learning to code is a waste of time. But no one should be discouraged from learning anything, ever.
• phomer 14y ago
  The world doesn't need 7 billion programmers, and if people really do want to learn programming then they should learn to do it correctly since the world doesn't need anymore badly written software (we have enough already). Paul.