I think this article assumes that 'learning to code' and 'being a programmer' are one and the same. I personally believe than (like many things) there is a huge difference between the two - I do believe that anybody can code, but being a programmer is a completely different kettle of fish.
Anybody can code, sure. Not everybody can code professionally.
The hard part of coding professionally is getting a job. Practice is much more important than native ability for most intellectual activities until you get to the very peak of competitive performance.
I believe most technology is being developed and sold under the guise of "betterment" and "progress"; However, very little ethical scrutiny is performed and probabably not a lot of forethought given to long term impacts.
If one looks truly, looks deeply and really asks themselves, "Is my work really having a, lasting, positive impact and making me happy", one might be suprised at the answer. Doing this can be a confronting, life altering exercise.
The author makes valid points, coding can be difficult, isolating and stressful. It's not always ping pong tables and bean bags, though it often starts out that way.
The truth is, most of the worlds major issues could be solved using some self-sacrifice and common sense, technology is not everything. Looking into the origin of your food, your pay check and your motivations can be be good start in realising that.
Making things is fun... Programming is fun when you do it for you (side projects, hobbies, etc), but when you have to push a 70h week to meet a stupid deadline, it's not. When you have to debug some weird bug on a conflicting environment or platform, it's not fun.
Professional programming can be fun, but it's usually not. But it's a job I wouldn't change for anything else.
Noting a stereotype is a "cultural dig"? Why don't you take offense at the other stereotypes preceding those (ie "socially challenged, type-first-think-later hacker")?
Because "socially challenged, type-first-think-later hacker" has some sort of relationship with people not thinking about wider social implications of their work.
I'd have the same reaction if they said "Asian immigrant on a h1b visa" - why are you even bringing this up when it has absolutely no relevance to the subject at hand? Might as well bring up hoodies and jeans while you're at it.
I agree that it's technically complex. But ethically complex? Not at all. In my 12+ years of SE experience, I've never once come across an ethical dilemma. He doesn't really explain why it would be ethically complex.
Coding can be fun. It can also be technically and ethically complex or not. I personally think the problem with coding is that it's exhausting. That to me is the biggest problem with the software profession, that it's exhausting.
This article starts out making a case, then about halfway through it takes a weird turn and gets pretty surreal. Am I the only one who got lost there?
I think within 'coding' there is such a vast range of different pursuits - code can be like architecture, document filing systems, artwork, marketing, etc… there is just such an abundance of variety it's really hard to put all of 'coding' into one box like this.
It's like saying 'writing' isn't fun, it's technically and ethically complex. Some writing, like medical records - carry life or death sentences if there are errors. Some strokes of the pens call for executions - not all writing is fun… but would you argue that because some writing is hard, painful, or dangerous - that writing can't be fun as well? Think of love letters, recipes, poetry, maps, music etc. All different forms of writing that can be fun in their own way.
i really don't understand the ethically complex part. off the top of my head i can divide these kind of decisions into 3 categories: offensive security which in most cases is clear on which side you are on, bugs that can affect user's wellbeing for which there must be guidelines or someone is not doing their job (technical incompetence is besides the point, everybody makes mistakes but some risks can be quantified beforehand and mitigatios be put in place), and intended functionality like fingerprinting which most of the times are pushed top down from the product manager's side, again, pretty well clear cut where the responsibility lies. the point is most of the time the 'coders' decide on the how part and less on the what, which is where the real disasters come from.
23 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 32.2 ms ] threadVery strange article.
This has to be the worst false dichotomy I've heard in years.
Driving is not 'fun', it's technically and ethically complex.
Cooking is not 'fun', it's technically and ethically complex.
Life is not 'fun', it's technically and ethically complex.
<insert any hobby here> is not 'fun', it's technically and ethically complex.
The art of click-baity article titles is not 'fun', it's technically and ethically complex.
Anybody can code, sure. Not everybody can code professionally.
If one looks truly, looks deeply and really asks themselves, "Is my work really having a, lasting, positive impact and making me happy", one might be suprised at the answer. Doing this can be a confronting, life altering exercise.
The author makes valid points, coding can be difficult, isolating and stressful. It's not always ping pong tables and bean bags, though it often starts out that way.
The truth is, most of the worlds major issues could be solved using some self-sacrifice and common sense, technology is not everything. Looking into the origin of your food, your pay check and your motivations can be be good start in realising that.
Professional programming can be fun, but it's usually not. But it's a job I wouldn't change for anything else.
What the heck does that have to do with the rest of the article? Just a cultural dig at coding and coder stereotypes that fits the current zeitgeist?
I'd have the same reaction if they said "Asian immigrant on a h1b visa" - why are you even bringing this up when it has absolutely no relevance to the subject at hand? Might as well bring up hoodies and jeans while you're at it.
I think within 'coding' there is such a vast range of different pursuits - code can be like architecture, document filing systems, artwork, marketing, etc… there is just such an abundance of variety it's really hard to put all of 'coding' into one box like this.
It's like saying 'writing' isn't fun, it's technically and ethically complex. Some writing, like medical records - carry life or death sentences if there are errors. Some strokes of the pens call for executions - not all writing is fun… but would you argue that because some writing is hard, painful, or dangerous - that writing can't be fun as well? Think of love letters, recipes, poetry, maps, music etc. All different forms of writing that can be fun in their own way.