The current zeitgeist would have you believe that as long as you can code, you’re future-proof. You’re likely to be better off learning to talk to computers than you are people.
Society is trying to persuade you that we are in the midst of a supposedly ultra-meritocratic, ultra-liberal, opportunity-is-everywhere shift towards a technology-centred utopia, where the people really worth having — above all — are those who can speak the language of machines, who can code.
I disagree. I would hope I wouldn’t have to explain why, but I will. First, however, I’d like to ask another question.
Seriously, are we? I overhear café conversations along the lines of:
“What did you do over summer?”
“Oh, I taught myself to code”
“Great! What languages?”
“Mainly Javascript, but also some HTML. I’m applying to loads of tech companies. I might even start my own — I wanna be like Mark Zuckerberg or something”
I put a sachet of sugar in my coffee and leave.
I mildly despair because these are the people applying to do some seriously hard work, and knowing how to code and having the ability to build complex hardware or software systems — let alone companies — are very, very different.
As the occasionally rather wise Dom Mazzetti said —
Admittedly, that was about CrossFit, but the metaphor still stands.
It’s like claiming you’re amazing at building furniture because you happen to own a car and live within driving distance of IKEA.
When I hear talk of how the world needs more coders, I’m thinking “Do they mean we need more people with an understanding of Algorithmic Complexity? Concurrency? Graph Theory? Compilation? Networks? Logic? Architecture? Modelling? Machine Learning? Engineering? Signal Processing? Are they talking about heavier exploration of User Experience? Human-Computer Interaction? Informatics? Analytics?”. This is the toolbox of a Computer Scientist, one with the ability to appreciate the hybridity of the world and the know-how to build bridges across gaps with technology.
These things can’t be learned over a summer, yet they’re skills that will stand you — an aspirant starter — in far greater stead than snippets of code would. No doubt, there is currently a market for technically creative minds, but simply being able to write code is not an assured indicator of blue-chip prowess. Not even close, really.
It seems to me that people are losing sight of many other beautiful and fascinating walks of life in favour of tunnelling relentlessly in search of a $3bn acquisition. And they’re arming themselves with toothpicks to fight titans.
Whilst coding can — and maybe even should — be seen and used as a gateway to deeper computer science principles, I think it’s important to be mindful that the two are not the same thing. I would argue any computer scientist worth his salt has a thorough grasp of programming, but one can get a very long way without it.
Education authorities need to be careful, here, to avoid the 19th century mistake of favouring disciplines useful to the current social movement (mathematics and the sciences, at that point) at the expense of others. We’re teetering on the edge of feverishly plugging education in programming to capitalise on all the milk spilling from Silicon Valley’s Cash Cows. They’re mis-selling the tools required to become a technological giant.
Even if someone can draw perfect circles or straight lines, without an appreciation and understanding of the world and wider art they’re creating, contributing to or inhabiting, I’m inclined to agree with what Paxman didn’t say — just what is the point of it all?
Email me when Matt Schofield publishes or recommends stories