Call me a cynic, but I'm really indifferent to this entire "everyone should learn to code" nonsense. There are so many mistruths that Code.org is spreading that it's shameful.
Let's get down to the biggest one: that with a "little bit of math and science" you can build the latest video game or write an app.
Buzzer #1. It doesn't take just "a little bit" of math. It takes a TON of math. Reading CLRS took me a month to master, and that was already with a background in elementary calculus using the infinitesimal approach. I'm reading Knuth's seminal "Art of," and I can immediately say that it would be absolute hell for anyone without an advanced mathematics background.
That brings us to mistruth #2: that somehow, learning to "code" will help younger people build tomorrow. That's utter bull. Learning to code will only lead to worse code: uglier, crappier, and less elegant and efficient code. Github will become a junk pile. Instead of coding, we need to teach students the programming part of computer science. Get a copy of Algorithms into every CS course and get rid of all of the silicon in the classroom. Trust me, people will learn much more meaningful things about problem-solving that way. Isn't that what writing code really sets out to do? You know, SOLVE PROBLEMS? Just code is NOT going to help that at ALL.
Then there's problem number 3, and probably the largest one: it assumes that programming is something we need EVERYONE to learn. EVERYONE. Yes, that is Code.org's goal. EVERYONE SHOULD CODE.
You know what, fuck it and let's teach EVERYONE TO BE A MECHANIC. Right? Why the hell not? It's like programming. Nobody in their right minds would tell people to make mechanical engineering a part of the curriculum. But people insist on doing the same for CS, as if it's any different.
I could go on about this for days. But forget it, Atwood's explained it far better than I ever could.
> "...absolute hell for anyone without an advanced mathematics background"
I'm a good programmer in a well-paid job. I've never studied mathematics formally. I've picked up a little knowledge of it from books, but I've almost never needed it for any programming I've done. Your statement seems crazy to me.
Of course, if you're reading fucking Knuth then yeah, there's some mathematics involved, but you seem to be arguing that you can't write an app without it, which is simply false. I've written apps. No maths beyond basic arithmetic.
2 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 13.9 ms ] threadLet's get down to the biggest one: that with a "little bit of math and science" you can build the latest video game or write an app.
Buzzer #1. It doesn't take just "a little bit" of math. It takes a TON of math. Reading CLRS took me a month to master, and that was already with a background in elementary calculus using the infinitesimal approach. I'm reading Knuth's seminal "Art of," and I can immediately say that it would be absolute hell for anyone without an advanced mathematics background.
That brings us to mistruth #2: that somehow, learning to "code" will help younger people build tomorrow. That's utter bull. Learning to code will only lead to worse code: uglier, crappier, and less elegant and efficient code. Github will become a junk pile. Instead of coding, we need to teach students the programming part of computer science. Get a copy of Algorithms into every CS course and get rid of all of the silicon in the classroom. Trust me, people will learn much more meaningful things about problem-solving that way. Isn't that what writing code really sets out to do? You know, SOLVE PROBLEMS? Just code is NOT going to help that at ALL.
Then there's problem number 3, and probably the largest one: it assumes that programming is something we need EVERYONE to learn. EVERYONE. Yes, that is Code.org's goal. EVERYONE SHOULD CODE.
You know what, fuck it and let's teach EVERYONE TO BE A MECHANIC. Right? Why the hell not? It's like programming. Nobody in their right minds would tell people to make mechanical engineering a part of the curriculum. But people insist on doing the same for CS, as if it's any different.
I could go on about this for days. But forget it, Atwood's explained it far better than I ever could.
I'm a good programmer in a well-paid job. I've never studied mathematics formally. I've picked up a little knowledge of it from books, but I've almost never needed it for any programming I've done. Your statement seems crazy to me.
Of course, if you're reading fucking Knuth then yeah, there's some mathematics involved, but you seem to be arguing that you can't write an app without it, which is simply false. I've written apps. No maths beyond basic arithmetic.