Forget 6-Minute Abs: Learn To Code In a Day

whyloginwhysubscribe writes "The usually excellent BBC 'Click' programme has an article on 'Why computer code is the new language to learn' — which features a company in London who offer courses on learning to code in a day. The BBC clip has an interesting interview with a marketing director who, it seems to me, is going to go back and tell his programmers to speed up because otherwise he could do it himself! Decoded.co's testimonials page is particularly funny: 'I really feel like I could talk credibly to a coder, given we can now actually speak the same language.'"

Comments

language != logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing code has little to do with "grammar" and more to do with logic. I wonder, how do you teach that in a day?

Re:language != logic

[Culture20]

Incidentally, why doing you programmers just prove that your algorithms will never hang before shipping code? Are you lazy or something?

Few programmers are computer scientists, just as few slashdot users being grammarians.

Re:language != logic

[Quiet_Desperation]

just as few slashdot users being grammarians.

I fail to see how religion enters into this.

Re:language != logic

[Baloroth]

I fail to see how religion enters into this.

Emacs vs vi.

Re:language != logic

[amicusNYCL]

It's a course in HTML, CSS, and Javascript. Javascript is the only one of the three that is an actual programming language, they aren't teaching people how to program. They're teaching people how those three languages interact to create a web page. It actually seems like a pretty useful course for developers who work in any company that produces online products to send their marketing and sales teams to, so that those teams can at least get a glimpse about how these things work just so that they have a better understanding of what they're asking us to do. Or, so that they have more of an idea of what's possible. The #1 question I'm asked is "is it possible to..." Yes, it's possible, it's always possible, it's a question of time and money. I don't know how many times I have to answer that question before people realize they can just skip straight to the second question ("what does it take to do it"). A class like this may clue them in.

Re:language != logic

[kallisti]

I think that's a mis-reference to the Halting Problem if so. It's not (always) hard to prove that a given algorithm will terminate. It's just not possible to do it generically, and that doesn't sound like what he was suggesting.

I think that's a misunderstanding of the Joking Problem. It's not (always) hard to prove that a given post was intended for humorous effect and thus could get away with not being exactly correct.

It often runs into the Pedant Problem, which is sort of the geek version of code refusing to run if it contains the slightest error.

Re:language != logic

[frank_adrian314159]

Yes, it's possible, it's always possible, it's a question of time and money.

Obviously, you've never had a marketing person ask for something that is so out of the ballpark that it would be an equivalent of solving "strong AI" problems (where you can't give an estimate) - it's not always "possible". The answer to which must be, "We can't do that, but we could do this," where "this" is at least a tractable problem and puts you back in the realm of your question #1.

Re:language != logic

[the_B0fh]

You haven't taken the ESP class yet?

Re:language != logic

[Kelbear]

Marketing's reply: Through the use of social disruptive crowd-sourced adaptive technology that curates and refines user-generated data like never before. Obviously.

Re:language != logic

[DJRumpy]

No, they teach the fundamentals of HTML, CSS and Javascript, not the entire language (or markup as the case may be). Unless someone has perfect recall, and a thorough understanding of coding structures, there is no way you could possibly teach them to code well in an hour.

You CAN teach someone basic coding fundamentals, some basic structures, and where the index is on their 'coding for dummies' book, but hoping for some to spit out a complex, complete program after an hour of teaching is not realistic in any sense of the word.

"Hello World" yes. Beyond that? Not so much...

Re:language != logic

[Mitchell314]

With tags, what more do you need to know?

A little knowledge...

[CadentOrange]

... is a dangerous thing! I can just see bosses putting more pressure on coders to "get the job done now!" and then failing to understand why code takes so long to be delivered.

Re:A little knowledge...

[iamgnat]

If coding can be learned in a day, why do we have people who suck so badly at it?

Because they learned it in a day?

Re:A little knowledge...

[Kenja]

Fast, cheap, good. Pick any two.

Problem is many managers pick fast & cheap and then complain when its not good.

Re:A little knowledge...

[TheCarp]

Meh I could teach you to write basic code in a day. The difference is, nobody hires people because "they know how to write code". Its about being experienced and knwoledgeable.

I could teach you to drive a car in a day too.... but, being able to drive a car and being an expert, experienced driver are two very very different things. There is a huge difference between "I can step on the gas and make it go, and bring it to a stop" and "I have been in several skids, and am adept at steering out of them" (or rather into them, if you want to split that hair).

I think they are doing a real disservice to their students if they are really leaving them with the impression that they are going to be competent or even "speak the same language" as someone who has been doing it for years.

That said, I might believe in either the ability to teach some basic coding in a day or the ability to gain exposure to some concepts and learn to communicate better with coders in a day... but... to become a competent coder? That I would need to see to believe.

More accurate title for the training

[bjdevil66]

Learn how to really piss off real developers in a day.

I can write that code!

[khasim]

Hire me. Just pay me 10% more than the rest of your team combined but I will deliver the code you need within 24 hours.

And I only have 2 requirements.

1. It does not have to work.

2. I do not have to maintain it.

WRITING code is easy.

Mandatory Code Monkey quote

[ashshy]

Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write god damned login page himself
Code Monkey not say it out loud
Code Monkey not crazy, just proud

Excellent comparison with spoken language

[vlm]

The similarity with spoken language is uncanny.

Much as I can teach you "beer please?" and "where's the bathroom?" and "my /. UID is lower than yours" in spanish in about a day, I can probably teach you the crudest basics of any programming language in about a day.

I'm told that learning your 2nd 3rd 4th spoken language gets easier, every time you learn one you learn the next easier. Programming languages are certainly like that.

Even the epic overconfidence is similar. "I know how to ask for a beer in Spanish, I'm now fully qualified, lets book our flight to Spain!"

Also the teasing is similar. Sure kid, that "O(n^n^n) algorithm is perfectly scalable, you just roll that right out into production, testing in for wussies anyway" is the computer equivalent of teaching a noob that the foreign equivalent of "nice rack, wanna F" actually translates in English to "thank you"

Re:Excellent comparison with spoken language

[firewrought]

The similarity with spoken language is uncanny.

The similarities go way deeper than that. Mainly, there is a strong isomorphism between how human and computer languages are encoded and interpreted/compiled.

At the lowest level, a digital "alphabet" must be imposed on this unruly analogue world. Human languages use phonemes (generally a few dozen distinct sounds) while computer languages use a character set (such as ASCII or Unicode). These alphabets are all basically a set of finite, unchanging, and meaningless symbols.

One level up are morphemes or words and word-parts that are constructed of phonemes. So "dog" is the name/morpheme we assign to the furry thing lifting its leg over your bedroom carpet; "urinate" is the morpheme we assign to its activity; and "ed" is the morpheme that signifies the activity has already completed (as in urinated). In computer languages this is called lexcal analysis, and it happens very early during compilation, usually with the help of regexps. In both cases, this phase transforms the fixed set of phonemes into a large, ever-growing set of meaningful symbols.

The next level up is syntax, in which a governing grammar (itself consisting of a closed set of abstract categories) is used to parse the morphemes/lexical tokens into tree-like data structures that will subsequently be used to determine relationships between word-units. This is where you start reading Chomsky or the Dragon book and reaching for the Midol. I don't know if it's Chomsky's fault or what, but there's a lot of similar terminology here between the same fields (e.g., syntax, grammar, parsing, production rules), as well as dissimilar terminology for roughly equivalent concepts (e.g., sentence<==>statement, clause<==>expression, paragraph<==>method).

After that comes semantics (assignment of meaning) and pragmatics (what things mean in context), for which you could find some suggestive connections with compilation (type-checking and processor-specific optimizations, perhaps), but here the easy/clean comparisons start to break down... probably because we still have a very limited understanding of how the human brain works. In both cases, it seems that there has to be a translation from the abstract, extracted idea down into the series of electrical impulses that yield a change in state of the target brain/computer.

As a completely separate topic, there is an isomorphism (in the sense of the term that Hofstadter uses in GEB) between how both human and computer languages evolve and branch cladistically with time. (And unsurprisingly, there is yet another isomorphism between biological evolution and language evolution.... we live in an endlessly fascinating world.)

Keep in mind, though, that we are ultimately finding similarities between things that are fundamentally different. Blindly inferring new "truths" about computer languages from human ones (or visa-versa) is a recipe for looking silly.

Mod parent up

[PhrostyMcByte]

Someone who thinks they can code is far more dangerous than someone who realizes they can't and defers to experts. Pity the devs who'll have to suffer a bad manager going worse because of this!

Re:Mod parent up

[Rei]

Code monkey think maybe manager wanna write goddamn login page himself.
Code monkey don't say it out loud.
Code monkey not crazy, just proud.

Here's your response

[Okian Warrior]

Response to your boss:

Coding is like chess. it's easy to learn, but takes a lifetime to master.

You can learn the rules of chess in a day, and you can play your first three matches on that same day. It takes a lifetime of study to be any good at chess, to be better than others at chess, or to compete in any way at chess.

Another way to put it is like guitar, or piano.

How long does it take to earn money playing guitar? Basic guitar takes about a week of practice, but how long will it take to earn money from playing it?

As with anything, there are basics as well as subtle, underlying principles. Coding, chess, guitar, piano, or any other refined action takes years of practice, experimentation, and learning to master. About 10,000 hours all told.

Then ask: "How many hours does it take to become a manager?"

WARNING: Chess Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of the class appears to be able to help people relate to the technicians that run their infrastructure. In the broadcast, the students learn how to use a GPS Java API along with very rudimentary HTML, and CSS. I have done that in a single 2 hour class. That makes them about as qualified to program as this /. post makes me qualified to write a sequel to Lord of the Rings.

You can teach someone the rules of Chess in a day, yet it takes years to master the game. Programming is the same. I can teach the syntax of HTML, CSS, and basic Java in a day (just like the BBC broadcast depicted), but the student will not know how to properly utilize the logic for years. Good luck with recursion, overloading functions, vulnerability testing, and many other concepts.

No, No, No, You've Got It All Wrong

[jeko]

"learn ... in ten easy minutes

Screw learning. With my new Sarah Palin Voyage of Self-Discovery and the Christian Buddha, you'll discover that you always knew the answers in your heart all along. Trying to become some so-called "expert" by doing things like "studying" just makes you an elite egghead who gets all wishy-washy when it comes to the truthiness of anything.

You already know the answer, and you know that you do! Don't let those gosh-darned experts tell you any different!

Act now, and we'll bonus you with the Anthony Robbins method "Solve Any Problem in Three Easy Steps!"

Step One: It's not a problem. It's a challenge!
Step Two: You can Always Decide to Meet That Challenge!
Step Three: Once you Decide to Meet that Challenge, It's Been Met! Problem Solved with nothing more than the Power of your Mind!