Your initial statement doesn't make sense anymore in the new context you're trying to paint. You're building a strawman here. Absolutely nobody said that programming should be taught "from 1st to final grade in school, 10 hours every week".

And in school you're not learning just "reading, writing, math, communication and similar".

Other disciplines learned in school are biology and its branches, like botany or anatomy of the human body, chemistry, physics, history, foreign languages like French and Latin, psychology, philosophy and so on. Not all of these disciplines are taught 10 hours per week.

Also, reading and writing are only taught in the first years. After that they teach you grammar and literary analysis, but considering how illiterate today's teenagers are, many schools are clearly doing a poor job, so to save some taxpayer's money they should just make those optional.

And seriously, I could think of a couple of disciplines I learned in school that would be less important than cooking or programming.

I don't really know what your argument is, except that you somehow think I'm revising my comment "trying to paint a new context" and even "building a strawman" to boot. Yet you offer no explanations for these very rude remarks.

The parts in my comments about cooking, 10 hours pr week, and the short list of subjects, are all merely examples. Replace it with car repair, 2 hours a week and your informative list of school subjects, and the argument is untouched. It should be obvious that these details are entirely irrelevant.

Car repair, 2 hours a week for a quarter or so would be an excellent use of most students' time (with minor the exception of people who live in the biggest cities and never drive). You're missing the point of the people rebutting your argument, which is that cooking, programming, car repair, and many other day-to-day subjects are more important than many of the subjects that you take for granted as being necessary.

Please understand that my original comment is not about cooking. It's not about car repair either. And it's definitely not about whether cooking and car repair are valuable skills. Or even if they should be taught for 10 hours a week or 2 hours of week.

The argument was that a very high proficiency in reading, writing and maths has more value for the average student, than a very high proficiency in a niche subject. A nice subject being FOR EXAMPLE, cooking, car repair or programming.

Sure, our students might benefit from these subjects. But I doubt anyone would seriously suggest giving the same level of educational focus to those areas, rather than to basic life skills such as reading and writing.

And that is Atwood's point: Programming, like car repair, is an esoteric subject, and as such not equal in worth compared to more basic skills such as reading, writing and communication. By all means, subjects such as cooking, car repair and programming is good to know. But for the average student, a high level in reading will be considerably more important than a high proficiency in car repair.

This is the point (and that's actually Atwood's point, I haven't supplied mine), which I was merely explaining to the OP, as the OP interpreted the blog post as being against learning programming at all.

A couple of people countered by argumenting against irrelevant details, such as the use of cooking and car repairs as examples of esoteric subjects. They even started arguing the value of the specific examples compared to the basic skills, which of course is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Is anything taught in the final 4 years of school really universally necessary?

Definitely not! In my own opinion the majority of curriculum both in public school through to many university courses, is a waste of time, but that's a different discussion.