As a social science/humanities student who has tried to get as far away from anything math-related as possible, I enjoyed reading the Bloomberg article, which helped demystify the process and culture of coding. Coding is intimidating, particularly for liberal arts students. Yet, I have more and more friends from a variety of majors who have decided to try taking an introductory computer science course (it seems like everyone I know is currently in COMP 11). Hearing them discuss their projects fills me simultaneously with respect and a twinge of regret, reminding me of the one computer science class I attended before dropping the class earlier this semester.

Reading this article invoked that same feeling, particularly after reading the section on women (which I would have loved to seen expanded). As Ford describes, the average programmer is someone who is “moderately diligent, capable of basic mathematics, has a working knowledge of one or more programming languages, and can communicate what he or she is doing to management and his or her peers.” This is where the voice in my head went, ‘Hey, wait a minute — that kind of sounds like it could be me! Other than the “working knowledge of one or more programming languages” part… but how hard can that be to learn?’

Other than inspiring me to consider giving computer science another shot, the article also delved in to the culture of coding and how it is perceived. I liked how Ford poked fun at the relationship dynamic and differences between programmers and non-programmers, such as when he compares hour-long conferences with “standup” meetings via Slack, which is “essentially like Google Chat but with some sort of plaid visual theme, and the programmers seem to agree that this is a wonderful and fruitful way to work.” Ford discussed other aspects of the culture of coding, including tech conferences as partially a function of acculturation, and some languages being “cooler” than others. By incorporating humor into this article, he made it personable, engaging, and accessible to non-coders like myself (the cool graphics definitely helped, too).

On the other hand, I also enjoyed reading about concerns from the perspective of coders. It is interesting how in a field I perceive as stable and secure given the exploding demand for computer science majors, programmers are aware that their position is vulnerable. Ford points to how dynamic the industry is, how it is constantly changing and developing, and how, maybe, the language a coder has learned is not as good as a different language — something I had never really considered before.