> 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.
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".