Jeff Atwood of StackOverflow sparked an interesting debate this week with his piece Please Don't Learn to Code. I will grant Jeff that the "everyone should learn to code" meme jumped the shark around the time that the mayor of New York signed up for Codeacademy, but, while I share Jeff's sceptisism that mastering programming is a necessary life skill, framing the issue as a binary choice between becoming a coder or not strikes me as a artificially narrow.
I also agree with Jeff's sentiment that:
The general populace (and its political leadership) could probably benefit most of all from a basic understanding of how computers, and the Internet, work.
But it is not the kids that need remedial computer training, it is their elders. I have three boys who are 8, 12, and 14 and in my experience, the kids are the ones with the basic computer skills who end up teaching their teachers, whether it is how to format a document or change a laptop's screen resolution so a Keynote presentation looks right. Too many teachers and school administrators still view computers as time-wasting cousins of game consoles and the Internet as something that needs to be monitored, filtered and generally kept out of the hands of kids. Together these create an environment incapable of helping kids who do not have basic comptuer skills and bereft of opportunities for kids who want to learn more.
Far too often schools still use computers as they did in the 90s when CD-ROM edutainment titles reigned. There may no longer be a plastic disk involved, but the concept is the same -- passive receipt of pre-packaged information. This is the exact same story that has played out since the filmstrip from my youth.
The difference that coding provides to kids is an opportunity to actually make something. If you have ever written a program of any size or sophistication, you know the excitement of bending the computer to your will and seeing it do as you command. That is a powerful thing in the hands of a kid.
Gabe over at MacDrifter.com put it well in his own post:
As a scientist and a hacky computer programmer, I see a direct parallel between [science and programming]. They both teach the following skills:
- Abstract problem solving through visualization
- Cause and effect
- Hypothesis generation
- Hypothesis testing
- Record keeping
These are all important skills in a liberal arts education, regardless of whether the pupils become scientists or programmers. Instead of sitting kids in front of high-tech versions of filmstrips, expose them to code. Done right, they will learn problem-solving and other skills regardless of whether they decide to become experts.
There is also a need for better outlets at school for kids who do want to take coding to the next level. These kids are the next generation of professional programmers and should be encouraged. The lack of programming classes in schools is disheartening. In my area, all that is offered is Java, and not until at least sophomore year of high school, long after most kids show an interest in learning to program. For self-starters, there are outlets like Codeacademy.com, Coursera.org, Udacity.com, iTunes U and hundreds of tutorial sites, but schools should offer more to students at an earlier age.
I am sure it was not his intent, but I worry that Jeff Atwood's article will discourage someone who wants to learn to code. Learning to code is not the same as becoming a coder. There is room to use coding as a teaching tool and for the dabblers as well as the professionals. The opportunities for anyone interested in coding have never been greater -- they should be encouraged to give it a try, not told to move along.
Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 3:30PM 
