> We already live in that world, and it's been that way for centuries.
I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. Fair enough, but in a democracy, that chasm cannot grow too large before a citizen's right to choose becomes meaningless.
> ... not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics.
Not the topic. We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.
>I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others.
No, not exactly. I'm referring to the tendency for most people to be experts in one or two fields and mostly ignorant in others that are not related to their core competency.
>We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.
That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist", nor does learning math translate to "being a calculus professor."
> That's exactly my point. People should know how to use computers effectively, but that doesn't translate to "should know how to program" just like knowing how to read and write does not translate to "being a novelist"
No, people should know how to use computers which does translate to "know how to program" but not "be a professional software developer", just like knowing how to effectively function in a world with written language does translate into "knowing how to read and write" but not "be a novelist".
The vast majority of the computer-using population, on a daily basis, has zero need for programming in order to use a computer. The same cannot be said for reading and writing.
They do, however, need to know how to use a computer. This is an argument for computer literacy, not computer programming literacy.
If you can't make the computer do work for you, you're not really using it effectively. If you can only use programs others have written, you aren't really computer literate, you're just a monkey pushing a button. Computer programming literacy is the new reading. The vast majority of people who use computers now do need programming, they just don't realize it because they don't know they could be automating what they currently do manually.
Oh, and everyone who uses a computer should learn some basic shell scripting, it will make them vastly more productive regardless of their field of expertise.
I assume you mean a world where some people know more than others. Fair enough, but in a democracy, that chasm cannot grow too large before a citizen's right to choose becomes meaningless.
> ... not everyone should be pushed to learn computer science any more than they should be pushed to learn quantum mechanics.
Not the topic. We've accepted that the ability to read and write are basic to a functioning modern life. It's now true that the ability to compute has the same status. That doesn't mean everyone needs to know how to write a computer program, but print literacy never meant that a person should be able to write a novel.