Citation missing, but I've read a paper that claimed rather convincingly that you need a certain mindset both to be good at programming and to enjoy programming (unsurprisingly, this comes hand in hand).<p>It's not really problem solving, it's rather a specific kind of structured thinking. It's the attention to detail and the will to think through every aspect of an issue, to find a complete solution. That's also a useful skill outside of software or even engineering (I'd imagine law isn't all that different in that regard), but apparently it's really critical for software engineering. At the same time it's not necessarily linked to general intelligence or problem solving ability or creative thinking, it's just a particular way of approaching problems.<p>Said lost article had tests showing that only a small fraction of the population thinks this way, something below 10%.<p>Of course this isn't proven, but it matches with my personal experience. This always makes me very skeptical of things like end user programming, or programming as a mass profession. People without the skill can create programs, in particular in environments, but the results are usually quite fragile and expensive to maintain. "Real" programmers can usually create much greater value at lower cost, so there really isn't much of a point in employing lots of "not really" programmers.
It's an interesting question how much of the population is really capable of becoming productive coders in a professional setting. Certainly we already have a wide class of coders doing things like advanced Excel spreadsheets which require much of the critical thinking required to write general-purpose code, but even there you find that there is a distinct subset of people who really grok it and break through the next level of creative problem-solving ability.<p>I would argue that unless you can break through that wall where you have the tenacity, will and base knowledge to debug anything that is thrown your way, you will not be employable professionally as a coder because inevitably you will get hung up on something. I'm not sure the obvious outward computer-geek level passion is required, but I certainly think you need a real sense of satisfaction with the problem solving aspect of the job. How much of the population possesses that? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing far less than half.<p>My prediction instead is that hackers will continue hacking until we achieve artificial intelligence, and then computers themselves will do the heavy lifting and we can all be creative directors. At that point we will have to contend with far more difficult existential issues such as how to structure society and happiness for a species that is evolved from a difficult struggle for survival in a world where automation accounts for every physical need. Maybe philosophy will be the next mass profession.
I think the piece is overly optimistic about the prospects of coding becoming common place. We have dealt with the software crisis since the inception of software and up till now, no one has proposed an even half way plausible plan on how to address it. As such until someone solve the software crisis in a measurable way that can improve the quality and predictability of code. It will remain a craft, as such only the most skilled craftsmen will be of real value, with the less skill providing solutions that are far more expensive to maintain.<p>As well the for the majority of the population, writing software is just not attractive it's what technical minded people do, which is 10% of the population at best. Couple that with the fact that the industry up until now has not been that attractive to females and you start to see that there are a bunch of technical and cultural issue working against coding becoming the next mass profession.<p>The majority of people look at a logic puzzle and see frustration, they don't see a challenge that is interesting to solve. The minority that do, have the spark that is needed to code. Figure out how to give everyone that spark, and you may have a flame, but you still have to deal with all the other issues once you get the fire going.
I think the shortage of software development skills really has to do with the lack of there being enough people who get impassioned with this kind of stuff. When I step out of my bubble I realize that its really difficult to find cultural-personality fits for what building software requires. Most people are just not like 'us' for better or worse. Most people don't get giddy over implementing a new algorithm or building an elegant framework, etc. etc. and probably never will.<p>Here is an exercise... flip the table and think if our industry was going away and you needed to find a job in a completely new industry/job role. Personally for me about 95% of the things I can think of make me want to immediately throw up... sales, medicine, advertising, law etc. - no thanks they are just not me. I've known people who have transitioned into tech from other industries chasing the money here... they are usually gone within a year or 2.<p>The other problem is despite all the crap about "I learned to code in 2 months" it is a really long haul to become good. Probably similar to becoming a good author or painter.<p>Lastly, it is quite well known that <i>some</i> people in software can have a lot of economic problems as they get older not to mention some of the cultural problems in tech in certain places that have been well covered here. I guess the point being that I think its really really difficult to do software development if your not genuinely excited about doing the day-to-day stuff.
"Better, because writing code is a creative act which can be done with or without a traditional (antiquated?) office-based job, and can create enormous personal and economic value."<p>This article emphasizes <i>making</i>, which I think is important. It reminds me of my great-grandfather, who came to the US from Poland and started a clothing manufacturing business (that still exists to this day). I learned to make custom-tailored clothing by being in the business.<p>There was an opportunity back then for anyone willing to learn to make something and sell it. There simply aren't too many of these kind of opportunities today. Coding is definitely one of them. All I have learned from tailoring- the act of making something from scratch- has helped me as a developer. And vice versa.<p>"Most academic training is focused on teaching students theory, not practice."<p>The maker type of entrepreneurship requires a practical, work-based education, and college doesn't always provide for that. You learn to make by doing. It's circular: You learn to make by making. The resources for learning to code are readily available, and anyone willing to start making their own projects can teach themselves.<p>Another thing school can't teach you is <i>what</i> to make. This is where learning to code comes in: if you have experience with something else, you can code tools for that something else.
I have to seriously doubt this. Being good at programming requires a very similar type of brain as the one required to be good at mathematics. The argument is often "if only programming were to become standard curriculum which everyone is required to learn in some capacity, more people would be programming-literate."<p>Mathematics, in some level, has been required at all levels of education for quite some time and yet very few people can become proficient at anything at the college algebra level or above. If programming were to become as commonplace in our education system as math is, I believe you would see much the same thing. Many people would be able to memorize enough rules to get through the basics, but once it comes time to show that these basic concepts are understood in the form of applying them to more advanced concepts, you're going to see more people failing to get by, just as you do in anything other than basic math classes.<p>I certainly couldn't imagine a career becoming mainstream that requires mid-level calculus, or even algebra, and certainly not advanced analysis and proofing. By the same token, I find it hard to believe that any profession that requires understanding more than basic computer science concepts (simple looping and conditionals, no OO) will become mainstream. However programming today (writing a Rails app) is significantly different than it was 10 years ago (writing massive programs in C/assembly), so it's possible that programming becomes much easier than it currently is.
Chemistry, Engineering, Mathematics, etc. all existed before coding. So far, the number of people willing to do hard 'mental' tasks has been pretty low. More than a few people I have known haven't gotten into working with their brain that much until later in life, once they decide that the types of jobs generally available to the unskilled aren't what they want to do.<p>3 months to learn to code Java? I shudder to think of think kind of code those places produce.<p>Maybe people can learn to make database queries maybe, but most problems I've been asked to solve quickly morph and start requiring a lot more to get working, even to accomplish tasks that seem 'simple' on the surface.<p>If coding was simple to learn, UML->code would work flawlessly (as in a tool that generates code from UML). I don't think this has proven to be the case.
Of course! It's gonna be THE profession. I imaging in the future more and more things will be doable in 'software'. For example, manufacturing factories will be so automated and full of robots, that you can actually start building assembly lines in pure code. Subway & Railroad systems will drive completely by them self, controlled by code. Container ships & harbours might operate someday purely driven by software. Bottom line: Demand for coders is gonna explode and someday all we need is just coders.
Unlike prior shifts in national economies, coding--good coding at least--does not lend itself to the application of mass labor unlike manufacturing. In the prior mentioned shifts, hunter/gatherer --> agrarian and agrarian --> industrial, you could teach someone to do one or two repetitive jobs without consequence to the rest of the system. Every night at 5, shovel hay from loft to stall or every time a piece from machine A emerges, screw this knobby on and insert into machine B at a 45 degree angle. I would posit that coding requires far more awareness of the greater system as a whole. Changes made in one branch of the code will have a rippling effect throughout the system.
Nope, never a mass profession. Here's why.<p>1. This partially depends on which area of programming you are talking about. The web development industry is not an area which sees mass hiring. Most web development shops are small teams or one man shops. Running a web development shop is very hard because you have to make a living from running your business as opposed to punching a clock at work. Web development is difficult enough, add all that is required to make a living off it and that cuts the number of people who are able to make it by quite a bit. The article mentions Elance and Odesk jobs which pay "$15 to $20 or more per hour" but the only people who are able to make a living off those wages are living in low wage companies. In the U.S. you might as well be flipping burgers rather than attempting to live as a freelancer at those rates.<p>The same could largely be said for startups, mobile apps, etc.<p>2. How many coders does companies such as Google and Facebook have compared to the peak of companies such as Ford? Coding is not and never will be the sort of mass employment industry as manufacturing has been.<p>3. Coding requires a great deal of self motivation to learn and keep up with. Most people aren't willing to put in the effort that this requires. I learn by doing and I have never had the patience for books, classroom learning or even tutorials. Most people can't pick this stuff up without the sort of structured learning environment which doesn't work well for learning how to code. The number of people who are willing to put in this effort is likely the same percentage of people who are coders today.<p>4. The labor crunch in the coding industry is not just a crunch of people who know how to code, but rather a crunch for coders who are near the top. The industry could find plenty of people if they are looking for mediocre developers, but that's not where the jobs are going.<p>5. Knowing the basics of coding for working magic in spreadsheets isn't the same as being handed the keys to commit code to the crown jewels of the company. No matter how many people who know how to code and no matter what the basic expectations are for prospective employees, there won't ever be a significant increase in the number of people who are able to write the code which drives the company.<p>If the industry needs more coders, then probably the best solution at this point is to be more open to remote developers. That will increase the pool available. Education will also increase the pool, but not on a massive scale.
I don't think programming in its current form will become similar to unskilled labor. The important part about the examples at the beginning of the article (construction, factory workers) is that there were engineers (smart experts) behind the innovation that simplified a task so that an unskilled laborer could do it.<p>Can programming become so dumbed down that anyone could do it? Sure, there are plenty of tools out there that are "App Makers" for whatever platform/genre you want. But are those tools churning out apps that make a company? I haven't seen one.<p>The thing about software is that it is a ton of small pieces put together to create something new and unique. Factory workers put together a ton of small pieces, but to create something that has already been invented. A car, for example, has a specification created by smart people and put together by unskilled workers and machines.
My guess is that in the next few decades, not knowing how to code will be equivalent to being illiterate. This doesn't mean everyone will get paid to write code, but I suspect there will be <i>far</i> more programmers in the future than now.<p>Of course, coding in and of itself is likely to change dramatically, as languages will gradually support higher and higher levels of abstraction, making programming more and more approachable for the average person. But no matter what the code looks like, a strong grasp of logic, problem solving, and how software works will probably become a fundamental skill in society.<p><a href="http://www.quora.com/Does-the-computer-programming-profession-have-a-future/answer/Yevgeniy-Brikman" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/Does-the-computer-programming-professio...</a>
Coding? Maybe. Actually developing new software? No.<p>What is the difference? "Coding" is applying the tools you have to solve a problem that is in an already solved class of problems. (I.e. use VB to slap a quick UI on a database)<p>Developing new software often means solving a new class of problem.<p>There's nothing wrong with that distinction - coding certainly has value. But it's an important one to keep in mind. Both for your career, and for businesses that employ one or the other kind of developer.<p>But I'd argue that "coding" as outlined above is more the new literacy than the new profession. It is an ability you will need to get any job done well.
I certainly hope it does not become the next mass profession. I don't understand people that want everyone to learn to code. Its simple supply and demand, friends. As the supply of coders goes up, demand for my services go down.
Sure there is room for more people to become software developers, but let's not use the word 'profession'.<p>Quote from Steve McConnell:<p>——————————<p>According to legal precedents, a profession has:[1]<p>· A requirement for extensive learning and training<p>· A code of ethics imposing standards higher than those normally tolerated in the marketplace<p>· A disciplinary system for professionals who breach the code<p>· A primary emphasis on social responsibility over strictly individual gain, and a corresponding duty of its members to behave as members of a disciplined and honorable profession<p>· A prerequisite of a license prior to admission to practice<p>——————————<p><a href="http://www.stevemcconnell.com/psd/06-novumorganum.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.stevemcconnell.com/psd/06-novumorganum.htm</a><p>Software development in general hardly meets those qualifications. There are plenty of professional software developers, but software development is not a <i>profession</i>. This is a critical distinction, not just semantics.
If programming (or CS concepts) were to become part of common literacy, that wouldn't necessarily mean programming qua profession would be the next mass profession. Writing is part of common literacy, but professional writers aren't a huge portion of the population. There are a lot more people who write in the course of their work in some other profession, though.
Farming became obsolete because of economies of scale.<p>Factory work became obsolete because of economies of scale.<p>Manufacturing became obsolete because of economies of scale.<p>What do you think is our generation's economy of scale?<p>I think the near future will involve making it possible for anyone, even those without a technical background, to quickly build beautiful internet products.<p>What do you think is the next big leap? What would make coding obsolete?
Saeed Dehnadi and Richard have done some interesting work on... A cognitive study of early learning of programming, available at Saeed's page:<p><a href="http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/" rel="nofollow">http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/</a>
I think there are certain skills that strongly overlap. I never studied programming, but I did study music. I've seen that pattern many times. So perhaps students at music schools should consider developing secondary skills in coding. I certainly wish I had done that.
I wish coding were viewed as not just a profession, but a necessary skill to be literate in today's world. It seems impossible to me that our society can keep up with the pace and breadth of information that our digital-systems create.<p>And I don't mean that everyone should be able to understand assembly. I'd almost be happy if the average person can understand what makes a comma-delimited file parsable by Excel. Seriously...try asking someone who is not in the computing field about that.
"Coding" isn't one thing. We wouldn't imagine that it makes sense to put a home "cook" whose idea of making a pie encompasses placing a can of premade pie filling into a premade pie shell in the same bucket as a chef with several Michelin stars under their belt. Coding has as much range and as many different roles as cooking does, if not more, but there doesn't exist a well defined set of labels enumerating such divisions of skill and specialization.<p>Certainly "coding" will increasingly become prevalent in more and more professions. But that says little about whether the coding equivalent of "chefs" will be more numerous or not.
Programming is as much an art as a science.<p>It's as much the ability to find the dots as it is being able to connect the dots to make a usable picture.<p>I think some of the more basic, entry level, spec-based maybe development could become available for the masses, but until we do a better job of training people to engage and develop both heir creative artist and creative scientist, I'm not sure.
63% of Americans aged 18 to 24 couldn't find Iraq on a map after we'd been at war there for three years. So let's discount those people right away. The rest -- the other 37% -- have jobs and at least some kind of education. Most of them aren't interested in solving puzzles; they're interested in making money. That's what comes naturally to them.<p>I'm a mid-level coder. I bill $100-$150/hr. freelance. I specialize in cleaning up the messes left by the Indians and Romanians they hired the first time. I turn their disaster into a functional app, or website, on time and on budget (a budget about six times what they thought they'd be paying, but still not enough for the aggravation). It's a hellishly difficult job that makes me want to pull my hair out by the roots; but I'm good at what I do.<p>I DIDN'T go to college, and I never took a class in programming. And yet there are only one or two other guys in the world I'd trust to work on my code. So all of this, really, is bullshit. It's nice, but it's a lie. Either you're born with the kind of screwed up brain I have, that lets you see through the code, or you're not. They can commodify everything and turn everyone into a product, but they can't make more of us.