Everybody should learn to code?

Panda_Turtle

Do you think it is beneficial for everybody/anybody to learn the very basics of coding, no matter what career they are in?

You have the likes of Obama saying everybody should learn to code..

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/obama-becomes-first-president-write-computer-program/

And other important people have things to say about it..

https://code.org/quotes

srsly78

The protectionist part of me says no

SimonTemplar

There are two separate skills at question here. The syntax of IFs, loops etc is fairly easy. Even the theory around declaring variables and OOP is easy compared to most maths concepts thought for the higher level leaving cert. Standard SQL is almost spoken english.

However, applying such coding knowledge to solve a problem is entirely different.

A friend of mine does a lot of Excel work. She asked me to teach her VBA. She picked up the syntax fairly easy but she could almost never figure out how to apply VBA to solve even the most basic of problems. Perhaps she found it intimidating because she was quite good at writing long and creative Excel formulas, and VBA seemed like a natural progression for her. But she just didn't have the aptitude for it.

The idea that anyone can be a coder is a fallacy. I'm hopeless at art. I can barely draw a straight line with a ruler. If 80% of my school tabletable was art classes, I'd still be hopeless. I just don't have that skill. Same concept for coding.

That being said, there should be a happy medium because software development should be a class for the junior/leaving cert but not mandatory for everyone.

LukeQuietus

Yes. I agree. But not for the purposes of writting programs or getting jobs in programming.

Learning to program in any language teaches people real-world skills such as:

• How to break large problems into small manageable parts
• How to be patient and not get frustrated just because something goes wrong
• That problems will ALWAYS happen so you should put measures in place for when things go wrong
• How to fix every computer problem under the sun that your friends have because all of a sudden you know everything about how a computer actually works inside and out :mad:

AnimalChin

Sure what harm!?

I'm trying to learn Python at the moment and absolutely love it! I'm only at the early stages. I try not to do too much too soon though. I find anything I do though is sticking.

bpmurray

I think the idea here is really that everyone should have the opportunity to learn to code, and that it will be a skill that many will need in the future. That's why code.org and EU Code Week and Hour of Code and CoderDojo and all the other efforts to promote this are so active and so well supported.

Interesting that Ireland topped the league for EU Code Week and that the Irish CoderDojo is the top global movement in this area.

lil_lisa

I think it more has to do with the fact that as we move further and further into the future more and more things are being run by software and code. The people who don't learn to code/learn the concept of coding will fall behind too easily while those who can live in a world surrounded by programming may find it easier to move in life.

Think about when credit cards or cheque books came out, people slowly had to adjust to using them and learn how to use them on a regular basis. These are minor items which we may use several times a week. Something like software we are faced with every day. Computers, ATMS, microwaves, coffee makers, the list can go on. I think it will only become more and more present and if we are to expect that the majority of the population who surrounded by these items will sit back expecting everything to work like clockwork and work the way they want it to, well I honestly believe they will fall behind.

Software is becoming more and more open-sourced with public APIs being opened up everywhere for people to really program what THEY want. Sure, not everyone will become extremely tech savvy but in decades from now most people will know what's involved in coding.

OR

We'll build a way to never have a need to write code ever again and this was all a waste of time :P

Now, back to coding!

Continue;

Manach

No. In that while some level of knowledge of how the underlying infrastructure works would be of interest to all, there is a limit to when it comes to the education timetable on what can be taught. Even then, while there are excellent teachers, a PC Zone article mentioned that a majority are not up to the task. Thus it would be better to have brief introductions to coding, but allow those in the education system to find the talents that suit them instead of being shoehorned in to STEM to met industry needs - which ironically suits the historical foundation of the school system in Prussia (afair from reading the origins of such).

Atlantic Dawn

Everyone should learn how to cut a piece of timber with a saw, coding is not something that most people need to know.

Tom Dunne

The educator in me says an emphatic no.

It is clear that some people are cut for programming, more are not. Forcing it on people who neither have the aptitude nor the interest will only generate animosity.

Basic "programming" such as Scratch for kids - yes, it's fun. At least then they can get a taste of coding and see whether they like it or not. "Proper" coding - absolutely not.

GarIT

I think that's just like saying that everyone should learn to be a lawyer. Sure it would be great if everyone knew more about how laws work, after all laws affect us all. You have to ask though, is it beneficial, is it practical, is it a good use of time? To those I'd say no.

veryangryman

I think the basics of it should be an optional subject.

Alot of real-life applications, problem solving, patience when you hit a dead end etc are taught in it.

moycullen14

Most of the developers where I work certainly should!

L.Jenkins

What I'm getting from it is, that everyone should learn to code in some language or other, as a means of developing critical thinking and problem solving skills. It doesn't mean that everyone who learns how to code would be suited to a role as a developer or take up such a position, but might take something away from the experience that would be beneficial in other areas that requires creativity, analysis and out of box thinking.

reprise

I think it's an excellent idea, but with caveats.

I agree totally with anyone who says that some people are not cut out for coding. The attrition rate in CS is frightening. Two thirds of my original class in college left albeit it was some time ago. A lot of those who left were very smart people who went to do business, arts, marketing and a suite of other things, very successfully after realising that computers was simply not in their blood.

I teach a very happy young boy (my son) very very basic coding. He loves it. But I am at pains to constantly remind him that it is a vast subject, the computer is a dummy and he has to be the brain.

What really thrills me is to see his enthusiasm for the computer, how he wrestles with the concepts, whether he fully understands them or not. Last week, I was showing him concurrent multi threads running in Java and explaining how they were operating on a quad core CPU. All in very basic terms, but he was absolutely fascinated. He is looking at plenty of stuff he doesn't understand, but critically, he will never be intimidated by it and is comfortable with not knowing everything all at once.

That brings me to my main point. In his class he is a hero! the other kids think he is a genius and respect him for his computer knowledge. Imagine a kid getting that respect for being good at Irish or History! Boys are infamous for neglecting their education and not encouraging each other, but this is one subject that turns that worrying phenomenon on its head and it will naturally feed into a number of other subjects.

It's win win. It absolutely should be a core offshoot of maths and should be introduced as early as possible. Hopefully, when he goes to college, he won't lose two thirds of his friends in the first year and they wont lose a year of their lives either.

Aswerty

reprise wrote: »

He is looking at plenty of stuff he doesn't understand, but critically, he will never be intimidated by it and is comfortable with not knowing everything all at once.

I think this is a very important point. Most people are very intimidated by trying to do anything beyond the superficial when it comes to computing. A very admiral goal of "programming for everyone" might be just to make people more comfortable with the idea that computers aren't magic boxes that they have no control over.

gargargar

I have driven a car for years and yet haven't a clue how it works. My home has gas pipes and wiring all over it but I couldn't maintain it. Most people have only a basic understanding of their body. Should we not be teaching basic first aid or medicine in schools? I am being facetious but you get the idea.

Embarcing technological change has nothing to do with knowing code. I think the time would be better spent teaching maths/logic.

As a previous poster said above everyine would be better learning how to cut a piece of timber!

Dravokivich

I think there should be some basics. Using excel as a caculator doesnt really cut it. And that was what we learned of computers when I was in school.

L.Jenkins

gargargar wrote: »

I have driven a car for years and yet haven't a clue how it works. My home has gas pipes and wiring all over it but I couldn't maintain it. Most people have only a basic understanding of their body. Should we not be teaching basic first aid or medicine in schools? I am being facetious but you get the idea.

Embracing technological change has nothing to do with knowing code. I think the time would be better spent teaching maths/logic.

As a previous poster said above everyone would be better learning how to cut a piece of timber!

Maths/Logic and the sciences are good starting point in school. Learning additional skills, like how to maintain your car and basic home maintenance/DIY, carpentry, plumbing and electronics or the basics of programming a computer are things that seem to be lacking.

I got into a discussion recently regarding the lack of skills in this coming generation when it comes to repairing electronics devices or anything for that matter. It's sad to see really how easily things are discarded, without even making an attempt to repair or repurpose something.

Aswerty

gargargar wrote: »

I have driven a car for years and yet haven't a clue how it works. My home has gas pipes and wiring all over it but I couldn't maintain it. Most people have only a basic understanding of their body. Should we not be teaching basic first aid or medicine in schools? I am being facetious but you get the idea.

Embarcing technological change has nothing to do with knowing code. I think the time would be better spent teaching maths/logic.

As a previous poster said above everyine would be better learning how to cut a piece of timber!

Not knowing how ones car works is a shame, it takes very little effort to get a basic understanding. Though I'm sure you at least have a rudimentary understanding of a combustion engine, timing belt, gear box, axle, etc. This would be much more familiarity than a typical individuals understanding of the inside of their computer (including the soft insides).

The argument for blissful ignorance with systems you use on a daily basis is pretty poor. It takes a little bit of time to gain some understanding and the pay-off is generally pretty good. At least with cars you're forced to get some knowledge when the garage is like "well we need to do this, this, and this; that'll be €600 thank you very much!".

As to your facetious argument – science in the junior cycle and biology and home economics in the senior cycle is already taught. Basic first aid is something everyone should know and it's something I always feel guilty about not knowing. To some degree first aid is taught in home economics and would also be taught through some extra-curricular activities. So maybe I'm just not following your argument here but these are things already part of the education system.

Itzy wrote:

Maths/Logic and the sciences are good starting point in school. Learning additional skills, like how to maintain your car and basic home maintenance/DIY, carpentry, plumbing and electronics or the basics of programming a computer are things that seem to be lacking.

What do you think is taught in Construction, Engineering, Home Economics, and Technology? Lots of practical skills are taught. In fact just from replying to this thread I'm realising/remembering just how robust the Leaving Cert curriculum is. One area that is missing is the software side of technology – though at least there is an attempt at addressing this with the Computers class but the content of that class is terrible (at least 10 years ago when I did it).

Calina

In principle, I think people should be taught problem solving and critical thinking. I'm aware, however, that a lot of people don't want to be learning these things; otherwise we'd be performing better at maths across the board.

I'm nervous of comments like "everyone should learn to code" - a lot of times, they are coming from people who aren't, in themselves, great coders. Another issue is that there is some conflation between coding and knowing how computers work. One particular article on it suggested that if people knew how to code they'd be able to solve 404 errors and 500 errors when loading webpages. This isn't strictly speaking true.

There is also the issue that comments like this may have the motivation of driving down the earning potential of people who code, and by ensuring that coding becomes something anyone can do, it becomes devalued as a profession.

One of the things I have noticed in general with things like this - and they are similar to "everyone should learn a foreign language" is that there is little practical assessment of how this impacts on the education system and what, in an overarching manner, is our objective with the education system.

Ultimately, I think we need to step back, identify basic skill sets, and apply them before adding decoration. There is some research floating around now, certainly in foreign language acquisition studies, suggesting that age is not actually the biggest factor in second language acquisition in schooling, and that quality of teaching and curriculum matters more.

the tl;dr version: I think that there is an assumption that teaching people about coding will make them magically IT experts. This is dangerous.

there needs to be a focus on core underlying skills in the area of maths. We have a society which is too fast to claim not to be good at maths, when claiming they are not good at reading or writing would general a stigma

the question of what we need out of education needs to be addressed at a society level. Talking about specific subjects, be they maths, coding, languages, Irish, religion are detail picking at an amorphous blob we don't want to address.

It is useful to be able to code. It is more useful to be able to identify how that solves some problems (and completely fails to solve other problems). It would be interesting to clearly understand the motivation of suggesting that everyone should learn to code. You may as well suggest everyone should learn to be a hairdresser as well. It's a useful skill to have, but can be bought in.

croo

Given the advances that the Deep Learning algorithms are making will programming be a useful skill in the future (i.e. when today's children are entering the workforce). Not that I know a lot about this area but I was amazed at this Ted.com talk which seemed to indicate that there has been real, tangible, progress in this area of late and that that progress is only accelerating. If half of what they're predicting is correct I think many of use would be better served learning how to fix cars ... or at least follow the instructions from our AI overlords on how to fix the car

EamonnDunne

croo wrote: »

Given the advances that the Deep Learning algorithms are making will programming be a useful skill in the future (i.e. when today's children are entering the workforce). Not that I know a lot about this area but I was amazed at this talk which seemed to indicate that there has been real, tangible, progress in this area of late and that that progress is only accelerating. If half of what they're predicting is correct I think many of use would be better served learning how to fix cars ... or at least follow the instructions from our AI overlords on how to fix the car

Considering we generally can't get the current generation of software development correct, I seriously doubt our ability to automate the process with AI!

Calina

croo wrote: »

Given the advances that the Deep Learning algorithms are making will programming be a useful skill in the future (i.e. when today's children are entering the workforce). Not that I know a lot about this area but I was amazed at this Ted.com talk which seemed to indicate that there has been real, tangible, progress in this area of late and that that progress is only accelerating. If half of what they're predicting is correct I think many of use would be better served learning how to fix cars ... or at least follow the instructions from our AI overlords on how to fix the car

There has been a huge amount of progress in deep learning algorithms in the last few years but for a lot of functionality, they still rely on massive amounts of data and large distributed systems. If you use stuff like Google Now or Siri, you still have to contact a server for it to work for example; the amount of data required for sorting images is still substantial and there is still an awful lot of work necessary in unsupervised learning with deep learning techs.

If you're interested in this sort of stuff, Google, Facebook and Microsoft have all published papers on the subject lately.

For me, the most important thing is that what we understand that we can expect from artificial intelligence has changed over the last 50 or 60 years. Our view of it continues to evolve although not in a uniform manner. There is still a huge amount of work to be done in natural language processing and while we're making progress in certain areas, it's not really uniform either. Additionally, being able to write a script in Python is unlikely to enable you to engage with deep learning as a developer. I expect most people to engage with deep learning as end users and it will probably be invisible to them.

gargargar

Aswerty wrote: »

Not knowing how ones car works is a shame, it takes very little effort to get a basic understanding. Though I'm sure you at least have a rudimentary understanding of a combustion engine, timing belt, gear box, axle, etc. This would be much more familiarity than a typical individuals understanding of the inside of their computer (including the soft insides).

The argument for blissful ignorance with systems you use on a daily basis is pretty poor. It takes a little bit of time to gain some understanding and the pay-off is generally pretty good. At least with cars you're forced to get some knowledge when the garage is like "well we need to do this, this, and this; that'll be €600 thank you very much!".

As to your facetious argument – science in the junior cycle and biology and home economics in the senior cycle is already taught. Basic first aid is something everyone should know and it's something I always feel guilty about not knowing. To some degree first aid is taught in home economics and would also be taught through some extra-curricular activities. So maybe I'm just not following your argument here but these are things already part of the education system.

My point was that these are every day items in my life and I don't need to understand how they work. You can use technology all the time, as many people do, without having a clue how to structure a program.

Aswerty wrote: »

What do you think is taught in Construction, Engineering, Home Economics, and Technology? Lots of practical skills are taught. In fact just from replying to this thread I'm realising/remembering just how robust the Leaving Cert curriculum is. One area that is missing is the software side of technology – though at least there is an attempt at addressing this with the Computers class but the content of that class is terrible (at least 10 years ago when I did it).

I went to an academic all boys school (20 yrs ago) and was never taught these subjects. If they are taught to all kids now then that is great.

garancafan

I have long regarded the skills required for interaction with machines as being of a lower order than the skills required for interaction with fellow humans. I have, in fact, come to believe that prioritising skills of the nature of the former over those of the latter, constrain a school leaver/graduate to a career at a lower level than might otherwise be the case.

Calina

garancafan wrote: »

I have long regarded the skills required for interaction with machines as being of a lower order than the skills required for interaction with fellow humans. I have, in fact, come to believe that prioritising skills of the nature of the former over those of the latter, constrain a school leaver/graduate to a career at a lower level than might otherwise be the case.

IMO, yes, we need to prioritise communications skills in general terms.

However, there is a debate to be had regarding user interface design. Ultimately, you should not need a computer science background to use basic business software. It should be reasonably intuitive. Not all human/computer interaction is at the level of software design.

Aswerty

gargargar wrote: »

My point was that these are every day items in my life and I don't need to understand how they work. You can use technology all the time, as many people do, without having a clue how to structure a program.

I don't disagree that you can get away without knowing anything about these items but I don't hold with the position that it is acceptable to be ignorant about them. As can be seen on the software side of things people with no familiarity with software and telecomms aren't able to understand how legislation impacts on their freedom and privacy. Ignorance surrounding auto-mobiles ends up with people making poor decisions regarding maintenance – e.g. not shelling out €400 on a new timing belt when it's due.

It's much the same argument as regards why citizens should engage with a democracy. An informed person has more agency than an uniformed one; this holds true in almost every domain. I'm not arguing ignorance isn't a viable option for an individual, I'm arguing that it should not be an acceptable one (to within reason). Ultimately I hold this position with a view as to the type of society I'd like to live in.

I extend this argument to the discussion at hand such that I think people should be given the chance to be educated on computers to a degree that they understand the overall lay of the land and understand how one might approach gaining further competency. This doesn't necessarily mean everyone should learn to program but everyone should know what programming is (in University when I first approached it I was surprised it's practical form just involved writing text in a text editor) and how it fits into the overall picture of computing.

garancafan wrote:

I have long regarded the skills required for interaction with machines as being of a lower order than the skills required for interaction with fellow humans. I have, in fact, come to believe that prioritising skills of the nature of the former over those of the latter, constrain a school leaver/graduate to a career at a lower level than might otherwise be the case.

I don't think anyone would disagree that human interaction is more important than human-machine interaction. It's blindingly obvious!

croo

EamonnDunne wrote: »

Considering we generally can't get the current generation of software development correct, I seriously doubt our ability to automate the process with AI!

From the talk I linked, I understood that the algorithms are teaching themselves! But I'm not any way expert in this, I was genuinely surprised & impressed by the talk & the examples of what had been achieved already.

Calina wrote:

There is still a huge amount of work to be done

So I understood but, as I said, for those children starting school today what will AI hold for them? Will they want to code? Or will it be like us learning how to build one of the early single task computers... a fun task but ultimately a pointless exercise (for the most part)!

Calina wrote:

in natural language processing

In the ted video there was a demo of a program that listened to the speaker (in English), understanding the meaning, translating to Chinese and then "speaking" the translation (in the speakers voice). And hey it's a demo so I'm sure it needed just the right environment but that code had evolved to do that is, I think, pretty impressive. And much further advanced than I was aware... but I haven't taken much notice of AI since the mid 90s.

Calina wrote:

I expect most people to engage with deep learning as end users and it will probably be invisible to them.

Oh, I'm sure you're right.

garancafan

Aswerty wrote: »

I don't think anyone would disagree that human interaction is more important than human-machine interaction. It's blindingly obvious!

Yes. It's blindingly obvious when you think about it. Unfortunately, many don't.

chrislad

A quote from one of my lecturers kind of sums this up for me. She said that just because she was a qualified seamstress, do that mean that she is qualified to perform sutures etc on a person?

I certainly believe everyone should have some idea of coding, be it even just mark up language, but certainly, software engineering as a discipline, is one of the only engineering disciplines where anyone, regardless of qualification, can write code, and release an program. You wouldn't see a non qualified person being allowed to build a bridge!