• plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Explicit programmers are needed because the general public has failed to learn programming. Hiding the complexity behind nice interfaces makes it actually more difficult to understand programming.

    This comes all from programmers using programs to abstract programming away.

    What if the 2030s change the approach and use AI to teach everybody how to program?

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      the general public has failed to learn programming

      That’s like saying that the general public has failed to learn surgery, or the general public has failed to learn chemical engineering.

      There are certain things that it just doesn’t make sense for the general public to ever be expected to learn.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        People bake and learn basic chemistry. The baseline of general programming knowledge could be more than zero. It’s a fundamental part of our society.

        • alternategait@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          If you look at “I didn’t have eggs” you’ll quickly figure out that very few people are learning chemistry from baking/cooking.

          I memorized by rote the chord progressions in my favorite style of music. This does not mean I understand music theory at all.

    • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      What if the 2030s change the approach and use AI to teach everybody how to program?

      What does AI (already known to be an unreliable bullshitting machine) provide to students that existing tutorials, videos and teachers do not already?

      Also the companies investing in AI are not trying to teach their workers to be better, they’re trying to make more profit by replacing workers or artificially increasing their outputs. Teaching people to program is not what they care about

    • Gremour@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Hiding the complexity behind nice interfaces makes it actually more difficult to understand programming.

      This is a very important point, that most of my colleagues with OOP background seem to miss. They build a bunch of abstractions and then say it’s easy, because we have one liner in calling code, pretending that the rest of the code doesn’t exist. Oh yes, it certainly exists! And needs to be maintained, too.

    • Luccus@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      I find this to be a real problem with visual shaders. I know how certain mathematical formulas affect an input, but instead of just pressing the Enter key and writing it down, I now have to move blocks around, and oh no, they were nicely logically aligned, now one block is covering another block, oh noo, what a mess and the auto sort thing messes up the logical sorting completly… well too bad.

      And I find that most solutions on the internet utilizing the visual editor tend to forget that previous outputs can be reused. Getting normals from already generated noise without resampling somehow becomes arcane knowledge.

      Edit: words.