Slashdot Mirror
Is Code.org Too Soulless To Make an Impact?
theodp writes "By trotting out politicians (Bill Clinton, Mike Bloomberg, Marco Rubio, Al Gore) and celebrities (Chris Bosh, will.i.am, Ashton Kutcher), Tuesday's Code.org launch certainly was a home run with the media. But will it actually strike a chord with kids and inspire them to code? Dave Winer has his doubts, and explains why — as someone who truly loves programming — code.org rubbed him the wrong way. 'I don't like who is doing the pitching,' says Winer, 'and who isn't. Out of the 83 people they quote, I doubt if many of them have written code recently, and most of them have never done it, and have no idea what they're talking about.' Code.org's because-you-can-make-a-lot of-money-doing-it pitch also leaves Dave cold. So, why should one code, Dave? 'Primarily you should do it because you love it, because it's fun — because it's wonderful to create machines with your mind. Hugely empowering. Emotionally gratifying. Software is math-in-motion. It's a miracle of the mind. And if you can do it, really well, there's absolutely nothing like it.' Nice. So, could Code.org use less soulless prattle from 'leaders and trendsetters' and more genuine passion from programmers?"
Just force all ninth graders to learn Scheme instead of Microsoft Word.
Ok, this is going to burn karma like crazy... but an article about a guy named Dave Winer who is complaining? Seriously?
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
You're not going to entice a kid to do anything with the promise of "math in motion".
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I am more interested in the learning to read above the 6th grade level.
It's not soulless, it's condescending. Grabbing a bunch of random celebrities and pretending they have anything to do with learning to code is ridiculous.
If there's one thing academia doesn't need, it's crass marketing with celebrity spokespeople.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Scheme and Lisp all the way! Just start off playing with the run environment in emacs and build your way up. Play with the Scheme interpreter com-ponent of GAP. You should program to learn how to accomplish things, even silly things like temperature conversions (F->C, C->F, F->C->K, K->F, et cetera) so a kid feels like they're getting shortcuts for homework. Pretty soon they're actually learning things for each new thing they want to accomplish. Programming rote exercises feels meaningless to me. But there's that subjectivity again.
.
What's motivational to me may be crap to you. What motivates someone else to program may be crap-tastic to me. To each their own. But I strongly agree with teaching programming (not just coding a small small subprogram or subroutine, but actually understanding a project from beginning to end, even the temperature conversion programs can have a lot of UI trickery even if it's designed just for text mode).
.
My recommendations:
1 - play inside emacs
2 - Dr.Scheme
3 - autocad if you can get your hands on it and autolistp
"...trotting out politicians (Bill Clinton, Mike Bloomberg, Marco Rubio, Al Gore) and celebrities (Chris Bosh, will.i.am, Ashton Kutcher)..."
Why not trot out someone famous who knows something about the subject, like Bill Gates or Steve Wozniak?
The problem with encouraging a person to program for the sheer joy of it is that they start to adopt useful/fun programming languages that managers don't know... like Perl... and that's just too dangerous. It's best to keep programming soulless... :)
http://www.beanleafpress.com
I've never seen a programmer who had to be encouraged to program. Mostly, I'm interested in the people you can't get to stop programming.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I first became interested in computers after watching the movie "Hackers".
Please get off of my internet.
I've worked in California in the past, so I'm sure my U.S. colleagues would agree: this is all just part of the show to get unlimited visas for large companies. Rather like the Wall Street banks pleading for a bailout...poor us... then making records profit$ the following years. It's all part of the game boys. Learning to lie convincingly is how you get to the top.
I don't think anyone on slashdot is in their target market. I looked at the site and it was meh, but perhaps a neophyt would get excited about having simple options layed out for them.
I have to laugh at this article becuase I think Unix geeks and many on slashdot are secretly the alt music scene kids of old that hated a band a soon as they got popular. I think the truth is many of us want to keep geekdom a private club and so we come down on things like this.
Look at the people at http://www.code.org/quotes. Some are politicians but many are from the computing industry. Quit whining and actually look.
This is an astroturfing job. At "code.org", you can sign up to support what they want, but you can't vote against it, or even comment on it.
Sure you can make a decent income, but nothing like what those folks make. On top of that the politicians want to make sure this job no longer pays a good wage. What jobs they cannot export they will import cheaper workers for.
This tells kids who are paying attention that they should become politicians or celebrities. Since you never see famous coders like Carmack endorsing the latest Kutcher movie or whatever this will.i.am person does.
Some of us had absolutely no exposure to Phreaks at all, until that movie. Dont be too judgy.
Good-bye
FWIW, the first thing that popped into my libertarian head is that they want to increase the supply of programmers, thus decreasing their value. You lost me after that.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
Especially for kids, but also for people with souls, "it makes money" is not a sufficient justification. Lots of things make money; anal prostitution and being a hired killer also make money.
However, you can usually get traction by pitching it as a skill that is worthy in its own right as it bestows power upon those who yield it. Like learning to play an instrument, it is fun for its own sake and also useful in isolation. It allows you to create things and have a certain type of power.
The point of coding for those who will have the "coder mentality" is that you can fix things, make them do what you need, and accommodate needs outside the generic functions that most people use. It's the same reason you learn to play a guitar, so you can write the songs you like, or learn woodworking, electronics, etc.
I don't think this appeal will ever go wrong, while the sanitized and denatured "but it's a great job!" approach will sound like more manipulative, submissive, obedient and conformist adult-logic to kids.
People who are satisfied with the status quo -- people who see a picture of Bill Clinton or Will.I.Am and think, "yeah, we're celebrating the right things" -- are not the kind of people who become passionate programmers. The best programmers the world has known have all looked at what we have and said, "This is lame, and I'm going to fix it no matter how many times my computer says, 'You coded it wrong.'" A dystopian view of the present is what drives people to run the compiler one more time, one more time, one more time, one more time, until at 3 AM they say, "FUCK YEAH, BITCH, I WIN!"
So unless that front page is trying to inspire kids by making them think, "I am going to learn enough so I can destroy asshat hairstyles like this," I think they've missed the mark.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Since when was coding and programming anything other than being someone who had the ability to manipulate and create programs, on computers, that would enable us to be creative. The whole idea of teaching programming in schools with many of these testimonials we hear "I'd like to advocate for computer coding to be an institution in the public school systems right next to biology, chemistry, physics, etc. If we want to spur job growth in the US we have to educate ourselves in the disciplines where jobs are available and where economic growth is feasible." This used to be a special skill, but the moment everyone can do this, is the moment what we have today becomes no longer unique. Programmers create these unique new ideas because they can and no one else has that ability. If everyone can program we lose that innovation, that community, it's suddenly an overflow of the same redundancy we'll end up teaching. Programming cannot be taught in schools today, because there is no significant demand for teachers with this skill with a salary that will pay. While programming is something that could be beneficial to students, why would a programmer go and teach at a school, when he could actually develop at a higher salary. All programming teachers I've experienced, are not programmers, they don't have the skills to be teaching children how to code, because they never saw it as an outlet for creativity. Copying code snippets from a book, will never be enough to teach the next generations the skills and creativity they need to be the fantastic developers they need to be for the kind of programming that would benefit our communities. The way code.org is running the testimonials feels like they're going in, knowing nothing about programming, and using as a quick fix for an injured economy, and that's not what programming is about. It's a trade, it's a skill, it's not something that should be hijacked by corporate bodies and used to breed the next generation of code monkeys. We should instead encourage projects like the raspberry pi, teaching kids who are interested to take their own initiative, and teach themselves something they find cool, instead of being used as something just to get a job. That's not what it is.
Come on guys, lets be honest, think about who they are marketing to, kids under the age of 18. This is the message that will most strongly resonate with that group. Trotting out genuinely passionate programmers probably wont carry the same weight as a name or face they can recognize. Think of this as PR for coding in general not a call to inspiration or something.
Kids need to be open to the idea and know that a life of programming does not mean a life stuck in the dungeon of nerd hell but can mean a profitable productive and meaningful existence. The video does all of these things IMO.
"On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami."
The launch video I saw was a bit different from the one described in TFS. I think it was delivering the right message, just for the wrong reasons. It's not about being a rock star, it's about learning how computers work. I think it's a great idea to encourage more people to learn how to write programs. It doesn't have to be C or Scheme or Java, just something that helps them understand how computers work. Computers shouldn't be scary technology; anyone can learn to write a simple computer program. And I think once you learn how to write that simple program, you start to understand how computers do the things that they do. Computers become less mysterious.
They actually did a study in which kids were paid for good grades. There was zero positive impact. It simply isn't a motivating factor.
Kids need problems to solve. Hobbies. And if they see that a computer can be used to solve their problem, they'll use it.
I didn't learn programming because it was "fun" when I was 8 or so. I learned programming because it solved problems I was interested in. Namely, making games and creating animation. I made some pretty lengthy ASCII animations back in the day. I was interested in animation and computers were a way to solve the problem since I didn't have an 8mm camera and money to spend on developing film as would be required if I tried to use stop motion as the means to solve the problem.
I still use programming primarily to solve problems. I just solve different problems and get paid more to do it now.
Work Safe Porn
Holy crap! They can link to Khan Academy! That'll fix everything.
If there was a severe shortage of programmers, every programmer you know would be making $100k +.
This smells like a ploy simply to get Congress to pass legislation to allow more visas and drive down salaries. This smells like a trick to justify offshoring more jobs. This smells like some kind of crap to get Congress to approve tax incentives to companies that have programmers most likely already on staff - not actually hiring more. In other words, this whole thing seems like a way simply for businesses to make more money - not to provide more jobs and certainly not to educate/train people.
Watch - there will be a ton of marketing events and a lot of face time on major news networks. What you won't actually see is any education, any grants for students studying CE/CS, or any job creation.
Guess what, Zuck: if you want to offer me $150k for a mid-level programming job because there's a lack of programmers on the market, I'll dig into my closet and dust off my old programming hat. Until then, quit whining.
----- obSig
Did you even look at that link for scheme?
(define (area-of-ring outer inner)
(- (area-of-disk outer)
(area-of-disk inner)))
(define (area-of-ring outer inner)
(- (* 3.14 (* outer outer))
(* 3.14 (* inner inner))))
The first example looks like mush and is just going to turn them off. Teach them python or java or something that wont turn them off to programming for the rest of their lives. I am sure you LISP guys can do wonders. But maybe its not so good for a first language. It looks like garbage.
Yeah, I know I suck. blah blah blah
Yea, I'll believe that. When I started programming at age 13 the only thing I had in mind was my future job prospects. I didn't care if I enjoyed solving problems or creating stuff. The only thing I cared about was getting a head start on the career ladder and the future money I'd make, typical I think of all teenagers. I mean, every kid in school gets good grades and plans for college so they can make money right?
Yea, if you don't detect the sarcasm in the above, you shouldn't be here. Oddly enough, I started programming at 13, but it wasn't until I was 16 and someone asked me what kind of career I wanted that it actually clicked that I could do this as a job. Also, didn't finish college, but at an entry level programming job (a junior, but every other junior is a college graduate), less than $1000 in debt, making decent money, and only 21 years old.... Oh, and I wake up every morning happy that I actually am doing something interesting.
Most coding the commercial world wants is boring. Your home projects may be fun but most of the work out there is not. It doesn't pay that well now and it sure as hell won't pay better if a bunch of kids are tricked into pursuing it, further increasing the labor surplus in a professions you could teach yourself with nothing but a computer and an Internet connection.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Anything promoted by Ashton Kutcher turns me away immediately. ack
Looking back, I hated coding. I had so many ideas and games I wanted to create that I bought programming books and tried to read/ understand them as much as I could. I tried Pascal, then Java. I found it infuriating that it took so much time and effort just to write a "hello world" - I had to download drivers, compilers, start some kind of server, setup the drivers etc etc. I hated it. At most, I wrote a calendar app. I hated it, especially when there were thousands of other calendar apps out there which were much better and looked nicer.
Later in life, I picked up 3d software (thanks to Maya educational version). I fell in love with it. The scripting was a bit tough, creating a simple sphere was much more gratifying. I could procedurally create a matrix of spheres and randomize its colors - in short, I could visually create an if-then loop. I loved it.Coding was cool and it felt powerful. It sure beats creating 1,000 spheres and trying to align them by hand. Now I go back to my math textbooks. I am fascinated by physics formulas and actually understand them. I can't get enough of coding and manipulating visual assets/ data that way was enlightening.
I don't agree with the PSA and it kind of turns me off too. I agree with the OP that motivation has to come from within. If I had high hopes to say, make big bucks, a "hello world" would be infuriating (I understand is a necessary step though). But what sent me into a path of disillusionment was the notion of how much a single coder can accomplish vs. a team of coders - assuming you're an average guy. I'm no Bill Gates or Zuckerberg. I'm not a gifted coder at all. I had my own assumptions of what I could do as a coder vs. what movies and media seems to imply what an individual (and average) coder can accomplish.
Not saying this is the case, but I've heard a few people mention that the attempt here is to make programming skills much more common and thus, less valuable. If anyone has any insight on it I'd be glad to hear it.
Either way, though, I just wouldn't trust the American public school system to give students a good feeling for programming of any sort. If it ends up like any other subject being taught, all of which could be said to be interesting, then they'll reduce it not to a series of critical thinking challenges but a tedious exercise in memorizing and regurgitating information weekly, to then just forget it entirely by the time summer rolls around. As I've never attended school anywhere else, I couldn't say how well it'd work for the rest of the world, so the program might fare better elsewhere. But I can't see it generating anything other than disinterest in the subjects among students as has been the case with math, history, science, literature, etc. etc.
And... oh... whois says it's registration is private, that's odd. Are we sure this is real and not just a way to harvest email address?
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
The video I watched a few days ago had mostly computing people - Bill Gates and Gabe Newell are the ones I can remember, but there were several others, all talking about coding and what they love about it. It seemed quite decent at appealing to their target audience, unlike most of the suggestions I've read so far on this story... I mean, Scheme? Maybe we should have RMS talking about it while eating his own toe cheese?
Linky to code.org video
It only looks like garbage to your eye because you've been trained in a different mode of expression.
To people who have been trained to value explicit hierarchical structure, it is extremely clear and unambiguous syntax.
No doubt you think Chinese "looks like garbage" too. Funny how the Chinese don't think so. You really need to be less small-town.
The last time we had people getting into programming because of the glamor was the dot-com boom, which lead to the dot-com bust, which lead to thousands of good programmers getting tossed out with the millions of bad. I want to work in an office that looks like one of those Stepford models, but some consulting gigs I get, I'm lucky to get a whole cube to myself. I have much better equipment, accommodations, and connectivity at home. All I think this video does is poorly try to raise the barrier to entry on small shops getting talented developers.
Coding is about evolving the activities of humanity and by so doing, directly making the world better.
Where the work of persons can be automated we do so with code in order to allow the attention and creativity that would otherwise be avoided or consumed to be redirected to solve bigger, harder, and more interesting problems to more effectively accomplish our goals, whatever they might be.
Caveats about our lack of understanding about what better might be, et cetera, aside: at least we can provide ourselves more free resources with which to solve and consider such problems.
At least, that is why I code...
the system that's dying in the united states is not capitalism
because capitalism is where the government stays out of the way and stops fucking the economy up more (an economy supported by government is closer to communism than capitalism)
"capitalist state" is an oxymoron
Gabe Newell's "wizard" comment struck me as the right thing to say. You can make cool stuff that does cool things and it doesn't require millions of dollars worth of equipment or special friends in high places or fame or whatever. Generally you just need time and effort and with the right idea you can do something pretty amazing.
Pics of offices with people playing rock music, ping pong and video games are, on the other hand, probably not a great idea.
I first became interested in computers after watching the movie "Hackers".
Conversely - this is when I first became interested in Angelina Jolie.
I understand where Dave's coming from, and I agree that "because you'll make tons of money doing it" argument might not be the most effective, but I also disagree with his reasons why you should learn to code. I think we're missing the ball with this all or nothing thing. There seems to be a focus in both Code.org and Dave's arguments on learning to code to eventually work as a programming. Kids should learn to code in school because it's a useful tool and it helps them learn to solve problems. They should learn to code because computers surround us and everyone could benefit from being able to use them more effectively.
No one's arguing that English should continue to be required because it's going to get me a lucrative English degree down the road. English classes instead teach us how to express ourselves clearly and help expose us to different ideas and viewpoints through the assigned reading. We require all sorts of classes because it results in well rounded students who can go out into the world and make better decisions based on this knowledge. Integrating programming into our curricula is just a logical step towards helping our children adapt to an increasingly technological world. If it convinces more of them to check out CS or programming jobs down the road, fantastic. This argument that you should only learn things you're passionate about and want to work in is crap, though. We're talking about middle and high schoolers, here. We should be exposing them to all sorts of fields so they can learn and develop their passions.
I like where you're going, but can't hop on that bus.
Learning how to use a wordprocessor. Learning how to make professional looking documents that communicate well to people is a valuable skill. I'm not a fan of Word, but whether it's Word or Libre Office, 90% of the kids will directly benefit from being able to compose their thoughts on the computer.
I love programming, but the percentage of people that would have their lives improved in some significant way by a 9th grade course in Scheme seems unlikely to be 90%, where for Libre Office that number seems conservative.
After learning this, everything else will seem like a cakewalk.
Seriously, though, I LOVE coding, which is why I continue to do it, long after my company has told me they don't want my code anymore (Because managers don't code, dontcha know).
However, the kind of things that go on in my head while I code might not be at all attractive to a lot of folks. I'm weird, and accept that fact. It makes me a good coder, but has its price. A lot of folks aren't weird, like me.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
let's "quantatively ease" the world population by creating more left wing liberal progressive retards ad infinitum... after all, ignorance is bliss right?
There is only one solution: communism!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet
contradiction much?
Yep. A good programming environment is key. That can mean hardware + software environment or it can also mean good encouraging parents and/or teachers and classrooms to play in at your own pace and timing. A good library, c-compiler, and a text-editor as simple as notepad or leafpad or nano will be fine for some kids. DrScheme is better for others. Some may like the easy-peasy approach possible with Hypercard running on an SE-30. My parents have a running TRS-80 and a running apple ][+ (and an SE-30, which is where I say and played with hypercard a bit) which you turn on (it's barely booting up when the boot-environment is the basic interpreter) directly into the BASIC interpreter environment. Those are unbelievably easy to play with and write basic BASIC code on. It's just saving onto cassette tapes that's a pain in the rumpus.
.
The TRS-80 has a cool spirally-bound manual for level one basic, and I have to admit to having a lot of fun in the 4k of memory on that machine when I started playing with it about five years ago.
I don't think "Encouraging more kids to learn to code" makes any sense at all. That is a top-down approach. Not everybody is cut out to be a coder, in the same way that not everybody is going to become a professional athlete, or a doctor, or any other profession.
Please DON'T tell kids that coding is guaranteed to make them financially successful; first of all it's not true, and secondly that is the wrong way to find your passion. First and foremost kids should be encouraged to find their passion, and THEN figure out how to be successful at it. And success does not always have to be measured in $$$.
If we want to increase to pool of talented coders, the right approach is to provide opportunity for kids that express an interest to have the tools they need to figure out if coding is the right thing for them. Some of them will find that it is; some may not, but they may find their way into something related and will be the better for having had the experience.
Code.org doesn't have a messaging problem, they've got a core conceptual problem. Trying to teach more people to program, especially by making it part of a core academic curriculum, is amazingly foolish. Anyone that's taken an introductory programming class at a university can tell you it is foolish. Jeff Atwood pointed out this paper seven years ago that expands on this idea. The skinny is that 30-60% of computer science students fail at introductory programming classes and consistently do so despite changes in languages, IDEs, and teaching methodologies. Some students simply could not form mental models needed to be able to program effectively. Keep in mind this was a self-selected group of students, ones who had chosen to take up computer science as a major.
Based on this it seems apparent that if "everyone" was required to take programming courses then a majority of them would simply fail to learn the skill and only pass because schools don't like to fail students. No greater number of students would learn to program and they would have no deeper understanding of how computers or software works. Computer programming is a fine elective and is something that should be available to high school students but it is simply absurd to think that trying to teach everyone to program would lead to everyone magically enriching their lives.
Teaching advanced mathematics to students is unlike teaching programming despite the two being advanced skills. With mathematics there's a consistent domain specific language that can be used. The language of calculus builds on the languages of algebra and geometry which themselves build on simple arithmetic. If someone learns calculus (and continues to use it) it will be applicable for the rest of their lives. The language used for theory is the same one used for applications.
In computer science there's the theoretical topics where "language is an implementation issue" and then more practical topics where the language and platform is paramount. Teaching high school students high level computer science topics isn't going to leave them with practical skills since it is often non-trivial to apply those theoretical concepts (which back practical topics) to a specific language and platform. Teaching more practical programming is going to leave them in a lurch when the school's choice of language and platform doesn't end up the future of the industry. There's thousands if not millions of kids that learned BASIC on Apple ][s and C64s that have not only never used those skills since but have absolutely no conception of how to apply the core concepts learned in this classes to more modern languages and platforms.
If the goal of a programming curriculum is to teach critical thinking, problem solving, or logic there's much better ways to teach those things. Limited school budgets shouldn't be trying to cover programming for everyone. Kids would be much better off being taught how to balance a check book, plan a household budget, and if you want to use computers some basics like don't send naked pictures to your boyfriend or girlfriend because shit stays on the internet forever.. Kids interested in programming will take programming electives and focus in that area. Trying to get everyone to program simply is not going to work and it a waste of time and money that could both be better spent.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Plenty of comments have pointed out that those of us who do code do it because we enjoy it rather than for money or career prospects or some other capitalism-inspired reason. Absolutely true, but that misses the real issue here.
To be blunt, most people can't learn to code beyond a painfully basic level. Yes, you can teach most people to write "hello world". You can get them up to the level of writing simple macros, simple queries, simple shell scripts. And after a decade of doing it, they'll still make total newbie mistakes - Uninitialized variables (nothing in that cell to grab, Dave!), randomly mixed booleans in their non-fully-parenthesized WHERE clause, failure to escape nested variable substitutions, etc.
Going further, even if significantly more people could eventually learn to code at a passable level, the vast majority of people hate everything about the mode of thinking programming requires, from the sustained alpha state to thinking in equations to iteratively breaking big problems into smaller ones. Describe how you code to someone - really get into it and express your zeal - and watch them squirm.
Or to put it another way - If everyone could (stand to) write code, we wouldn't have a massive shortage of a highly-paid and in-demand profession after four years of massive unemployment. If anything, we'd have a glut of programmers. And yet... That has not happened
Short and sweet
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
government needs to be there to keep the playing field level
not really. huge companies like microsoft and boeing tend to become monopolistic because they secure access to the government tit. if you look at most of the biggest companies in america, most if not all have big government contracts that keep them going.
consumers are the best judge of value. if the government stopped with the contracts and got out of the way, these big companies would have to compete on a level playing field.
it works to get laws passed that benefit it at the expense of its competitors (or its buyers)
yep, except that's when it starts becoming not so much capitalism
if a company can go to a politician and buy its way into getting legislation passed that benefits it over its competitors, then the government has become too big and corrupt that it has leverage and power to sell... governments should never get big enough to have leverage over markets because that leverage is power and power can always be bought and sold
its not the fault of the company... if government power wasn't available to be bought, there would be no problem
small governments tend to have less power to sell
[Invalid] - Markup Validation of ht tp://www.code.org/ - W3C Markup Validator
Errors found while checking this document as -//W3C//DTD HTML+RDFa 1.1//EN!
Result: 222 Errors, 127 warning(s)
(Also funny that the w3 uses a '(s)' after 'warnng' but not for 'error'.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The implication of code.org is that there is some kind of barrier to computer programming for students. This is simply not the case. You wanna "code", great, start coding. All of the tools I use as a professional are freely available to anyone who wants to download them. There are countless thousands of free tutorials on-line for virtually every language. There is absolutely no barrier whatsoever to anyone learning to code.
But... There's a huge difference between "coding" and being a professional computer programmer. Anyone can do the former, almost no one can do the latter. The simple fact of the matter is, we get paid so much because this stuff is hard and requires talent. Not all humans can sing professionally and not all humans can program professionally. This has nothing whatsoever to do forcing children to learn musical scales or how make boxes and circles bounce around on a web page.
How about if we just let the people with a passion for programming do that and let everyone else be.
I was fortunate to live in the 80s. The introduction of home PCs (Personal Computers, not IBM compatibles) was all we needed. We all tried to write games, and some of us got really good at it.
Flash forward, and it's all just a big grind. Why would anybody want to code now? It's all just a bunch of web-enabled surveillance apps written in HTML/JavaScript/scripting language spaghetti. We've hit a bad patch in technology. It happens every once in a while. Remember 16 bit computing, segmented addresses, DOS memory hacks? That was another bad spot in technology. None of the novelty of 8-bit, none of the ease of 32-bit, the worst of both worlds.
If you want to bring in a new batch of coders, it has to be disruptive technology. These $billionaires won't bring in the next batch. In fact, the next batch is what they fear.
Nope. The CEO of IBM did not do a big media push in the late 70s and early 80s to get guys like me interested in coding.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Whether or not posters on /. like code.org is inconsequential. We are the wrong audience. I think code.org is saying "it's not just nerds that benefit from knowing how to code."
The question is, might code.org get more people or less people programming. To give an example, how many people here idolize Enrique Iglesias? Probably close to zero. Yet in the broader world, I think there are some who take his (or some of the other leaders/trendetters') words as gospel, and those people might take his encouragement to program seriously. Is this a good thing? I say yes.
I want to know more about code.org but the summary doesn't give a link.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Teach them *anything* but a "concept" language. They don't need it. Teach real code in a language that's in daily use, and they'll learn the rest. Knowledge is a hard won asset and time and cognitive effort are limited. Giving kids (or adults) a knowledge asset whose particulars they will have to throw away and relearn is a waste of everyone's time (I'm lookin' at YOU, Microsoft).
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Realise this makes me sound like a leftist, but history lesson: Most of the advanced technology the US has churned out over the past 60 or 70 years has been heavily funded or supported by the government via the taxpayers. From transistors to cryptography, satellites, AI, moon missions, jet fighters, the Internet, nuclear power... in all those cases the bills were being paid by Uncle Sam for many decades & only when the hard problems were solved did the tech become cheap enough for corporations to make profits off average users in a 'free market'. Now, isn't it interesting that in those times of demented socialists such as Ike and the like that US technology made massive, massive leaps and stunned everyone (unfortunately a similar thing happened with Uncle Adolf in the 1940s).
Meanwhile since we dialed back government involvement (at least overtly) and 'let the market decide' we end up in a position in 2013 where the coolest shit the average person can imagine is playing Angry Birds on a phone or using a world-wide computer super-network to post their entire lives online while reading about what Katy Perry is up to.
Corporations are good at incremental improvements. They're good at playing it safe. They're completely awful at doing new or innovative things unless someone else foots the bill and said innovation doesn't damage their existing markets.
If the private sector was as good as the libertarian crowd reckons then am sure we'd have had a cure for cancer years ago, or cheap supersonic travel, or reliable electric cars. Note all those things have demand, a supply of willing customers to pay for them and are technically feasible and yet.... ... maybe in five years, eh?
Well, you're right about 9th grade being way too late.
All the kids at Newark Center for Creative Learning are taught to code. NCCL has been teaching basic programming to every student since the mid-1980s. They ran Macintoshes back when those were uncommon and these days they run Windows in the older grades, and linux in the earlier grades.
It seems fairly obvious that you have to expose lots of kids to lots of deep topics if you expect any significant number of them to dive into anything wholeheartedly. Sure, a few will learn on their own - I taught myself programming in the early 1970s when I had to break into University computer labs at night to do it - but you can't expect every child with untapped potential to somehow magically know that programming exists, and seek out his or her own education.
Al Gore may be a politician, but after all, he did invent coding.
Microsoft Word - Visual Basic Macros are a pretty hardcore programming language. If kids can hack THAT. Well, that was pretty much THE SHIT back in 1998, anyway. . . Nevermind. Back to your Scheme and Logo assignments!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Sure, a few will learn on their own - I taught myself programming in the early 1970s when I had to break into University computer labs at night to do it - but you can't expect every child with untapped potential to somehow magically know that programming exists, and seek out his or her own education.
You're probably right. I'm probably biased by the fact that I found out about it myself as a kid, and didn't need school to point me at it. I was learning as a kid in the late 70s/early 80s. Now I think about it, it may have been easier to get that first exposure back then, in the days when a BASIC CLI was the native UI for a home computer.
You can make cool stuff that does cool things and it doesn't require millions of dollars worth of equipment or special friends in high places or fame or whatever.
All this assumes access to a PC, as opposed to an iPad, a phone, or a game console. The equipment to code for these tends to run more expensive. This is especially true of the game console because console makers have made a business decision to refuse to deal with hobbyists or with students outside a few scattered, handpicked institutions. Who will vouch for one's "relevant video game industry experience" other than "special friends in high places", and how can one show "financial stability" without being able to afford at least tens of thousands "of dollars worth of equipment"?
This thread is hilarious. So many self-righteous pricks missing the point. Before fascination there must be exposure.
If celebrity attention can get kids to consider programming for even five seconds, they've done their job well. You don't trot out Ritchie and Kernighan to inspire 8th graders. Justin Bieber has a thousand times the reach. Let kids know it's cool and the wonderment will follow.
This is why slashbots don't run marketing campaigns.
No, capitalism is a name invented by 19th Century socialists to describe the system they opposed, in which the structures of the system (including those imposed by government) systematically and often actively favored capital over labor.
The system where government stays out of the way is called "anarchy", and is completely different.
You wanna "code", great, start coding.
This will work provided that the child's parents are willing to buy the child a general-purpose personal computer, even if the parent just bought the child an iProduct or a game console. "You already have that, and now you want a computer. What do you need that for so soon? Can't you surf the web and play your games on what I already bought you?"
For example, I was highly skeptical of will.i.am when he made his first appearance at the 2011 FIRST Robotics Kickoff, but he has consistently and passionately supported FIRST and other STEM related initiatives. He's one of the few celebrities that sees that the spotlight needs to be on the current and future scientists and engineers of the world. He's not an engineer by training, but he's eager to learn and expand his knowledge of STEM as he uses his fame to help promote it.
A good example starting at 2:00 with some of will's thoughts starting at 3:50 - http://youtu.be/SyIpO_aJIxU?t=2m
Not true at all; its quite possible to become passionate about preserving the status quo, which pretty much requires finding the world pretty much ok as it is, at least compared to the apparent immediately-available alternatives.
You can't become passionate about change without being dissatisfied with something in the status quo, but change isn't the only thing it is possible to be passionate about.
The beauty of Scheme is that the first element in the list is always a function.
Which is great if your native spoken language puts the verb before the subject like Welsh and Arabic. For speakers of better known languages, not so much.
While I don't disagree with your assessment, are you suggesting that government is the only tool a company can use to gain a monopoly? Considering that the goal of most capitalist, free market, ventures is to become a monopoly, I would expect them to use any resource available to attain that end (and I see many alternatives to government). The benefit of government in this situation (good government at least) is to ensure that markets remain competitive despite the desire of all the participants to destroy each other (along with free market). If you take away government, what force will rectify the market once a monopoly has been achieved?
This seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
But this is not an ideal world... Unfortunately, many people do not or cannot afford to do things they love . I am more artistic than technical.. long story short, I chose Computer major because after some research, it was better chance for me to score a job as a computer engineering/science major field than as an (building) architect. I needed to make money soon. Now 15 years later, I am doing pretty well. My work is a job, I do not necessarily "love" it. Often I do not feel to go to work, but I am not depressed, because I bring decent paycheck home. I can provide for my family, therefore I am pretty happy. I think the Code.org message is: "learn something that is useful, which in this case code/programming etc." That's it. Just learn.., and it is up to you what you want to do with the things you learn. I do not like politics in government, in fact I hate it. But often I try to learn how they work.., because it is useful. I am glad that some people got the chance to do what they love because that adds more happy people in this world.
kit's great if what you do to make money is also fun to you, but that's not the only factor.
Money is a good one. Generally, coding is less fun an usually boring for me. I used to do it all the time..but now I do it just for money. I do it well, I work hard, and my customers ar all very happy with my work. But when I walk out the door I'm don't want to go anywhere near a semi colon~
The only exception these days is if my kids want to do some script or something for a game. I love that.
Frankly, If I could make the same money, I'd spend my days playing my bass and building rockets.
I am aware no one has ever found a way to do it, but I would love to live in a world where what you are paid was based on age, and not what you do..just as long as you are doing something. start a base income at 18, peak at 50, slope down to retirement level at 65.
Maybe when robots are doing all the work.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Especially for kids, but also for people with souls, "it makes money" is not a sufficient justification.
And so, given this, the way to avoid the contradiction is to read it "it makes money, -for us-", the "us" being the spokespeople for whom the money clearly is sufficient justification.
Wake me when a software executives are encouraging more enthusiasm for mechanical engineering, and wind-power companies are encouraging more enthusiasm for code. Until then, it's just another play to increase their own bottom-line, in the time-honored "buy low, sell high" corporate tradition. Until then, as you've alluded to, the perception won't be one of an attempt to empower when the real objective is to disempower, by increasing the supply of the "human resource", thereby decreasing the power of each -individual-.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re: Your title:
Actually, it is in prefix, not postfix notation.
Which ("are learning") is actually why its probably not as hard for children a language that uses prefix rather than infix notation than it is for older people who hav been using infix notation exclusively for longer; just like its easier for kids to learn different natural languages.
200 lines? shit, I start looking hard at a function, or method, that exceed 20 lines.
Ironically, a former VB3 programmer insisted no function be under 200 lines~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Most coding the commercial world wants is boring. Your home projects may be fun but most of the work out there is not.
The same thing can be said of every other trade or profession you could name.
There is something to be said for the guy who will take on whatever job that needs doing that will provide him with a living and still give it his best.
Scheme is a real language that is in production use.
That it also has clear mapping to core concepts that are useful for teaching the theory of computation is nice side benefit.
Code.org is not perfect, but it doesn't have to be. I see it more as complementary to things that are already out there.
For those who want to learn, there is plenty of good material freely available on the Internet. And for those who don't have Internet access, you can learn to program without it, too (I learned from a book back before the Web existed).
There are also projects like Raspberry Pi that aim to get more hackable devices in the hands of kids, which I think is very important. Many of us learned to code back when computers had BASIC interpreters. Many current computers come without development environments, which makes it harder to get started. So having computers out there that lower the barrier to entry again is huge.
All that is great for people who are or become interested in software development by themselves. What code.org is doing is trying to interest people who otherwise wouldn't be interested. It's saying, "Hey, you may never have thought about this, or you may have decided it's not for you, but learn a bit of it, because you'll be better off no matter what career you end up choosing."
All this comes from the realization that having more people know how to program is a Good Thing. Even people who don't want to become software developers can benefit from knowing how to program. Even if they don't end up programming, it teaches logical thinking. And some people who wouldn't otherwise become software developers will become software developers because of these efforts. And lowering the barriers will lead to more awesome things being done, whether the end result is a computer program or something else.
These are all things I've felt for years, and I'm glad to see some icons of the software industry throwing their weight behind this campaign. The truth is, there are a lot of misconceptions about programming, and a lot of people end up not even looking into it because of these misconceptions. This campaign tries to do something about that. I'm all for it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Many excellent coders are self taught, however, most education systems require teaching degrees, or at the very least a degree.
Also, Since it is an ever-changing technology, only someone who is 'actively' and successfully coding and keeping up with the latest trends, can offer truly valuable info. Too long out of the trenches and you risk becoming only good for teaching the 'history of' computing.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
That is unfortunately true. Our mathematical notation is a result of centuries of bad ideas, compromises between clarity and brevity, and just plain nonsense. It is one of the biggest hurdles kids have to overcome when learning algebra.
In order to properly understand things like expression evaluation, composition and transformation of functions, derivatives etc, one has to actually translate the horrible infix mess that we use to prefix notation in your head. One of the biggest problem students have when calculating derivatives, which should actually be a completely trivial task, is this translation.
AccountKiller
I agree. If there is a genuine shortage, there is an easy solution to the problem: jack up wages enough and the supply will increase on its own. I am hardly a libertarian, but this issue is a pretty simple thing for the market to handle.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think that it is more parents, school administrators, and teachers. Just today a fellow teacher who had her 5th graders using Scratch to program solutions to math problems as a programming exercise was visited by our principal. The principal walked around and observed, asking the kids questions like "How will this help you in the future?" because that is apparently one way to assess teachers now. She had no clue what the kids were doing, or how it may help them understand math, logic, problem solving, or that they may find they have a talent, like, or even passion for it. We sent her a link to code.org with the hope that Gates and Zuckerburg endorsing something not in our standard curriculum may hold more weight than two rebellious teachers.
If coding is going to be more than a small elective in some middle and high schools, politicians and the educational bureaucracy need to believe that there is some value in it. They are the target.
Whomever was sitting on code.org since Sept. '99 now has a lot of cash to burn.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Never mistake "can" for "should".
i personally like the idea of non-profit companies (operated like normal companies)
you need startup capital, but there are ways to raise it other than with stock/shares (loans, vc, grants for example)
with a non-profit you take the shareholder out of the picture, so those who benefit are limited to employees and customers
it doesn't matter whether the companies don't qualify for non-profit tax breaks or not
just my 2 cents
regarding monopolies... without the government tit companies would have a lot of difficulty monopolizing any market, even if a product was a must have other companies would rip it off
smartphones and tablets are two products that seem to have so far avoided government contamination to a large degree, and while there are big companies playing off each other, there is stiff competition (as there should be). again the huge size of these companies has come about because of government intervention, not because of lack of market competition.
another example is linux; even with microsoft monopolization and government intervention, linux has infiltrated and succeeded in the embedded, mobile and server markets.
the free market can be corrupted by a number of influences, but by far the most harmful is big government regulation, bailouts, subsidies and long term contracts.
i can understand that there is good intention in some regulatory ideas, but there are often unintended adverse consequences that outweigh any supposed benefits
when markets become too corrupted by government intervention, black markets often flourish as they become more free and competitive
Ah, sure, in true capitalism things would be much better because (insert description of utopian capitalism). And probably no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] lives in a society that's not truly capitalist.
so you're saying that its unlikely that we'll ever have a free market where the government is able to keep its grubby mitts out... probably true, but not impossible or utopian (just look at black/illegal markets for example)
A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.
now who's living in utopia?
the free market is slower merely because it pays for itself
government funded R&D can be great, but the bills rack up and eventually everyone pays
are the cool things you mentioned worth the prolonged economic depression that america is rapidly headed towards?
keynesian retards think the fed can keep creating money out of thin air without consequence... they are mistaken
when you are spending china's hard earned wealth, you will eventually pay one way or another
’Nuff said.
I agree that that the video may not be the best choice at trying to sell to kids, but it is perfect for getting the support of politicians and school administrators. The high school I teach at cut their Computer Science program a year and a half ago. The reasons cited were budgetary and "lack of interest".
Not all kids are cut out to code, but a lot of those kids that are do not get the opportunity to find out. Fortunately, my school received a grant this year to at increase enrollment in AP Computer Science (easy to do when the class isn't even currently being offered). I convinced all the mathematics teachers in my school to get the students to play lightbot. I managed to snag a few students that loved it and would not have otherwise considered the course for next year.
Infix notation is fine for simple maths, i.e. all that 99% of the population ever use. If you're programming anything complicated, fine, use whatever notation you prefer. But just because it's easier for computers to parse doesn't mean that we should be teaching kids to count in binary.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And without government, what is to stop companies from using tools such as physical violence to secure their markets. Conversely, without government intervention to secure a brand name, trademark, what would stop another company from selling an Apple iPhone that was not an iPhone? Without any protections, how would companies make any profits at all? I am not for government control of markets, but my concerns are the extent of government influence. I cannot envision a scenario where no government intervention would turn out well.
but capitalism isn't utopia... it happens every day
look at any number of industries where the government plays its smallest role... local small businesses
even smartphones get cheaper as competition swells, despite attempts to corrupt that industry using the government patent office
even in china there is capitalism going on, and many would argue that there is more capitalism in china at the moment than there is in america
capitalism isn't a myth or rocket science.... its just letting business do its thing without the government fucking it up. government can still meddle in capitalism and not affect it too much (if it taxes all businesses the same way for example), but when it offers long term contracts, subsidies and bailouts, that's when capitalism loses out.
there is still capitalism going on in america, but as i implied in my original post it is under threat by ever increasing attempts by government to take control.
Black markets are almost tautologically heavily influenced by the government, given that law enforcement agencies actively try to stop it
law enforcement TRIES to stop it (and almost always fails because when they catch one player another joins in to take its place), and the markets do everything they can to hide, but the aim of any free market is freedom from government intervention and black markets are at the forefront of that. they shouldn't have to hide... the government should just take a hint and fuck off out of the way and let the economy do its thing, but in the absense of government sanity, going underground is the only option... it has nothing to do with being illegal; the government makes anything it can't control illegal regardless of its affect on the nation
you can never have things like free flow of information and freedom from coercion
why don't you take off your tin foil hat and take a look around. people are still running small businesses and making a profit. it is very difficult, but there is currently (however uncertain the future is) opportunity for someone to start a new business selling products or services and making a profit in exchange for their risk... that is basically capitalism in its most basic practical sense.
free markets exist, and they can flourish again. the government wasn't always as big as it is now. the economic powerhouse that the united states has been borrowing against for the last 40 years was built this way. it is the destruction of the value of the currency (over 90% since fiat introduction in '71) and uncontrolled government spending and intervention that is killing the nation and draining the economy, not businesses trying to make a buck and feed the economy.
capitalism that you wave off as utopian is real and achievable, and the communism that all the liberal left wing progressives want is a utopian fallacy that has and never will work in practice
libertarians and small government advocates aren't liked much by the masses because the masses depend on big government for their welfare checks, food stamps and healthcare, and they think if it means giving up freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution then so be it. they either choose to ignore or are completely unaware of how this road ends; in authoritarian regimes. maybe authoritarian regimes aren't all that bad, but if it were me i would personally prefer freedom over dependence-driven slavery anyday.
i live in australia, so i'm watching all this unfold on 'reality tv', and while i'm worried about the ripple effects of america's fall from grace, i'm hopeful that the australian government is learning from these mistakes.
that does happen (commonly called mafia or the mob) but not often, because businesses who operate like that still need to be seen as avoiding breaking criminal laws that have nothing to do with the free market
trademarks and patents only help big companies become more monopolistic... without them there would be a lot more smaller companies selling similar things and the wealth would be more distributed
government does have a purpose, as stated in the constitution, which is (broadly) mostly in the areas of national defense and preserving order (crime prevention/prosecution) and general welfare (health standards, etc). remember that there are also different levels of government, and most of the problems in the united states are due to the federal government. if a state government decided to meddle in markets, the affected markets would at least have the option to move interstate (but remain in the national economy)... when the federal government meddles in markets, companies and investors have no choice but to go offshore (and they are, in droves).
it's free because it operates without being hampered by rules and regulations
the whole law enforcement issue faces all players in a black market equally
also, the government doesn't affect the operation of a black market... money, information, products and services still change hands (otherwise the market wouldn't be able to operate at all)
the government can make operating a black market more difficult, but at the end of the day law enforcement will always be behind as black market operators come up with newer and more clever ways to keep their freedom
just because the government is trying to stop a black market doesn't mean there isn't free flow of information
you use the word "coercion" in a way that seems to imply that a black market is at a disadvantage because they are unable to operate out in the open. i would argue that the government is at a disadvantage as it constantly attempts to keep up with black market operations. governments are being coerced into spending more money in trying to hamper these markets. the markets that are coerced aren't black markets... just because they don't operate in the open doesn't mean they are at any disadvantage or that they have difficulties operating. in fact it is businesses that operate out in the open in accordance with the law that are coerced by government. there will always be risk in capitalist business, either from making no profit because the government takes it all, or making bigger profits than would otherwise be possible but getting caught by the government. black markets may not be as free to advertise their existence, but the only purpose of advertising is to increase customers (otherwise the overhead cost wouldn't be worth it), and black market operators still turn a profit so there are other ways to get customers. they obviously just have to be a little smarter and think outside the box compared to their out in the open business counterparts. running a business has its difficulties regardless of government involvement or not, but running a business without government taking huge chunks of revenue must have its benefits because a lot of people do it (illegal dvd sales for example).
i may have misunderstood your previous comment about coercion; i thought you were talking about capitalism in general. but in any case i don't think black markets are any more coerced by government than legal markets. worse if you want to consider the need to operate out of the government radar as being coercion, its no worse just different. as far as practical operation of a business, i doubt there is much of a difference between a business in the black market and in legal market. in fact quite often black markets operate in the open (such as at physical marketplaces). the "black" aspect is in many cases limited to not disclosing anything about the business to the government, which is probably a lot easier than submitted form after form to satisfy the bureaucrasies.
the crash of 2008 is well understood by people like peter schiff, who in the face of criticism from every direction predicted it beforehand.
those that doubt it was caused by the fed and government policies were the ones doing the criticising and now have egg on their faces.
low interest rates from the fed + government guaranteed mortgages = housing bubble
it's not rocket science