I wrote a huge mess that, on second thought, I put away just because I don't know Bret Victor and shouldn't shove words into his mouth.

But to me, I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm sorry, but this is a field were our median income is 50% more than the median income of the rest of the country. It's also a field that you don't need to go to college to join, can educate yourself on how to join it by using sites like Code.org and other online resources, and has a ton of demand, meaning you won't be out of work like your Dad has been, several times in the last few years.

To anyone going through school right now, then coming home and seeing the news their parents are watching, or look at the front page of the newspaper their parents are reading, or listen to an adult at their soccer game or the mall or church, all of this sounds like a way out of it, a way to give yourself something better than that.

Why in the hell is it so wrong to want a better life than what your parents had?

Because learning to code just so you can code doesn't in any way mean you are more likely to be employed in the future, especially if there is a successful push for people to learn to code just for the sake of having more programming literacy. That's not meant as a "let's keep it elite" comment, but as a "you're teaching the wrong thing" comment. As much as it may seem teaching people to code is teaching them to fish, when it's pushed this way it's closer to giving them a fish. Teaching them to reason and using programming as a method to teach them interesting concepts is teaching them to fish.

The problem is, we don't know what a "successful push" is. For all we know, "success" is half the world becoming programmers. We don't know what our upper limit is on this yet, as we've never been close to hitting it.

And as to teaching reasoning: I'll be honest, the best teachers in the world have trouble teaching this to anyone, and someone is wanting a website to do it?

Here's how I see this: programmers and coders are thoroughly ambiguous terms that mean different things to different people. If you think they equate to engineer, then it sounds like a good thing. If you think they equate to mechanic, then maybe not so much. I'm not sure half the world becoming mechanics necessarily has much benefit. Half the world as engineers, maybe so.

My take on the post is that Bret is viewing code.org, or at least the page he criticizes, as trying to make mechanics, when they should be trying to make engineers. Seen in that light, the quotes do take on sort of a different tone.

I think I would disagree on this point. Programmers and mechanics both share a similar ability: the knowledge to make machines amplify our work output. The more folks with these force multiplier skills, the higher the productivity.

Now, I agree that in principle, Engineers design and build those type of systems. However, I think as morr people are educated in those domains (programming or mechanical aptitudes), you will begin to find more self-taught engineers with the skills to bring ideas to life.

I think you're right and wrong: Programmers can be similar to mechanics, but that can alternatively be similar to engineers. It's all semantics, but the people taking part in the whole "learn to code" thing are most likely going to be the mechanics of programming: they can, if given oversight and clear instructions, build lots of things.

On the other side, there are those who are going to be doing the oversight and giving the clear instructions, who can build something from vague requirements with minimal fuss. There are also lots of people in between, but everything is easier when you put it in absolute terms.

In many countries, a professional is considered to be a banker, lawyer or a doctor. Programmers are not given the same respect.

Now with the importance of technology in our day-to-day lives, there is a chance for programmers and those working in IT to be considered as professionals, as equals.

Instead we have people within the industry running around describing themselves as 'geeks' and 'nerds' and 'hackers'. Meanwhile those outside the industry claim that programming is easy, anyone can do it, all you need is a computer and a couple of lessons.

You would not find people saying the same thing about doctors or lawyers, and you would not find doctors or lawyers denigrating themselves.

Being a doctor and practicing laws have much higher barriers to entry for purely practical reasons, not because of some goal of these professionals form "denigrating" themselves. They are not as nearly as accessible as programming and carry much higher consequences for incompetence (which also clearly still happens quite often regardless).

Stop being such an elitist. Just like any profession there are worlds of difference between the different levels of skill and competence, that doesn't mean you're denigrating yourself by trying to make it more accessible for kids.

It is entirely reasonable to demand some professionalism and set some standards in fields besides medicine and law. Already, many engineering disciplines are regulated and require a license to practice.

As computers become more and more woven into society, the consequences of having incompetent programmers are becoming more and more severe. Just one example currently in the news is the Target breach. Millions of people are affected by that. Or healthcare.gov, anyone?

Now just imagine when cars drive themselves, computers control your money (bitcoin), and "apps" supervise your grandparents' health.

The idea that all of this critical technical infrastructure is built out by Pepsi-fueled kids who reject education, experience, and scientific rigor in favor of whatever circle-jerk beliefs they invent amongst themselves as they "hack" on PHP, is frankly appalling. Such teams are the go-to choice for clueless corporate PHBs who only see dollars per hour as the hiring criteria.

But hey, that's the status quo, and I doubt you'll ever see companies move to be in favor of setting some professional standards, because the business priority is cheaper workers.

Great post.

This is really starting to sound like the dotcom era where anybody who wrote a line of HTML could say that they were a software developer.

It's worse.

Apparently you can take a random homeless person, give them a few lessons, and hey presto you have an app maker.

Well, 99% of apps don't do anything useful - they're either for killing time or an invention of marketing department hell-bent on selling you more of the stuff you don't need. So I'm not surprised that it's not difficult to build something that can compete in this market.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make but I've always felt like a professional, maybe because I mostly worked at tech companies. And anyone going around calling themselves "geek", "nerd", or "hacker", probably aren't one.

See post by wes-exp above.