---
title: "Please Do Learn To Code"
date: 2012-05-16T12:00:00-07:00
url: https://blog.lmorchard.com/2012/05/16/please-learn-to-code/
author: Les Orchard
tags: [coding, learning, work, webdev, mozilla]
---
# Please Do Learn To Code
**TL;DR**: I think coding is an essential skill for modern humans
surrounded by code and machines that run it. Please learn to code.
I disagree with Jeff Atwood on ["Please don't learn to code"][dontcode]:
> The "everyone should learn to code" movement isn't just wrong
> because it falsely equates coding with essential life skills like
> reading, writing, and math. I wish. It is wrong in so many other
> ways.
[dontcode]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/05/please-dont-learn-to-code.html
In fact, I *do* regard coding as an essential modern skill. Yes,
[right alongside reading, writing, and 'rithmatic][rithms]. At least
this part of [the post][dontcode] had me nodding:
[rithms]: http://dmlcentral.net/blog/cathy-davidson/why-we-need-4th-r-reading-writing-arithmetic-algorithms "Why We Need a 4th R: Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, algoRithms"
> I suppose I can support learning a tiny bit about programming just
> so you can recognize what code is, and when code might be an
> appropriate way to approach a problem you have. But I can also
> recognize plumbing problems when I see them without any particular
> training in the area.
## Visible pipes
Luckily, pipes are not as occult as code. If you go into a basement or
open the door under a sink, you can see them and follow where they go.
That's *some* training, albeit informal or self-directed.
I'm not sure how you'd get exposed to code in the same way: View
Source in a browser *used* to be a decent start on the web, [but
that's less helpful lately][saveviewsource]. Code elsewhere has
typically been hard to get at, Open Source notwithstanding.
[saveviewsource]: http://saveviewsource.org/
Still, I'd bet there are people in the world for whom running water
comes from *magic* and drains into *magic*. Where *magic* means: "I
never thought about it, never needed to, and am sometimes vaguely
afraid of it."
For that class of homeowner, [the kitchen floods when the sink springs
a leak, until an expert arrives][madmen]. It's not the end of
the world, and plenty of people get by just fine like that. But, I
certainly wouldn't agree that "**Please don't learn about pipes**" is
good advice in general.
[madmen]: http://www.gkdating.com/mad-men-lessons-three-men-and-a-sink/ "Mad Men Lessons: Three Men and a Sink"
## Learning by doing
Admittedly, "**learn to plumb**" isn't the same as "**learn about
pipes**". But, is there a difference between "**learn *to* code**" and
"**learn *about* code**"? I don't think so. Like writing, code doesn't
seem like a thing that's easy to learn *about* without *doing* it.
When I write "coder", I generally mean this: Someone who is capable of
encoding his or her intent and decision process into a form that can
drive a CPU to perform tasks on his or her behalf.
That's a very broad definition, but it implies a lot. First, you have
to realize that *you* can make a CPU can do things on your
behalf--it's okay, you won't break it. It's a tool made by
humans and you as a human can understand it. Then, you need a notion
of [algorithmic thinking][algothink], in order to formulate your
intent and reasoning in a form that a CPU can execute. These are not
natural or intuitive things.
[algothink]: http://rwxweb.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/teaching-algorithmic-thinking/
I agree with that it's good to "[recognize what code is, and when code
might be an appropriate way to approach a problem][dontcode]". But,
if you've never made a CPU do your bidding, it's easy to see it as a
mysterious black box with a will of its own--possibly malicious or
at least capricious.
And, if you've never worked to force your thoughts into to the
confoundingly literal and common senseless constraints of computer
programming, it's hard to even imagine how code works. If you can't
imagine how it works, how do you work it into your mental toolkit for
getting things done?
Learn to code, and a lot of other things get dragged into your head
along the way.
## Who needs all these coders?
And then, there were these bits from "[Please Don't Learn to
Code][dontcode]":
> It assumes that adding naive, novice,
> not-even-sure-they-like-this-whole-programming-thing coders to the
> workforce is a net positive for the world.
> It implies that there's a thin, easily permeable membrane between
> learning to program and getting paid to program professionally.
This is looking at work from the wrong angle. It isn't about *getting
paid to program*, so much as *coding to [be good at your
job][goodjob]*.
[goodjob]: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2004/08/be-good-at-your-job.html
I'm not talking about Java-heads who live all day in Eclipse. I'm
talking about the Excel-head who used to rock [VBA macros][vba], who
maybe just started playing with [Google Apps Script][gas]. I have no
idea how popular Google Apps Script might or might not be, but I've
seen some crazy amazing things done in VBA by sales and account reps
who'd punch you in the nose if you called them geeks.
[vba]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Basic_for_Applications
[gas]: https://developers.google.com/apps-script/
As far as I can tell, the future of work is heading toward more work
with greater volumes of information and data. Should **professional
programers** be the only people in an organization who know how to
apply computational power to solve problems? Maybe the vendors will
sweep in, clean up all [the cybercrud][complib], and get the real work
done for us.
[complib]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Lib_/_Dream_Machines
## Programming should not be a priesthood
Consider writing: there's a lot to learn and it used to be a thing
done only by a few scribes. But, people today get a lot of mileage out
of just sticky notes and email. Sure, improving your grammar and
learning how to structure an essay can help in many, many ways. But,
you don't need to be a **professional writer** to be a **professional
who uses written language**.
The same can apply for coding. The problem, though, is that the
sticky-notes-and-email level of competence barely exists or is near
impossible to access. So, not only do I think we need more coders--we
also need more tools that support coding and make coding more
accessible. I think we should support **professionals who use code**.
More than that, I think we should encourage and support **humans who
code**. I really do consider coding next to reading, writing, and
math. I don't think we can all rely on someone else to write the
perfect app for the work we'll need to do in the future. I expect the
successful people will be those who can apply [Taco Bell
programming][tacobell] to reams of data and find answers. We'll need
to ride [bicycles, not tricycles][dephotos].
[dephotos]: http://www.dougengelbart.org/history/pix.html#6
[tacobell]: http://teddziuba.com/2010/10/taco-bell-programming.html