Otherwise all the best footballers would save themselves until they'd paved their way to learning how to play by baking cookies and taking pride in it.
Or violinists. Or opera singers. Or mathematical prodigies. Or chess players. Or engineers.
But still. Some of the best people I know when it comes to making up algorithms for cutting edge problems, had definitely reached their adult height when they first learned what a compiler was.
(I will grant I don't know any really good programmer who started coding at e.g., 40. But there are relatively few people who change careers at 40, so my sample size is very small. )
I also suspect that if you flex those particular muscles hard from a relatively early age, they will become stronger relative to someone who doesn't. The original author believes that programming requires a unique combination of skills/abilities which is why he is fond of it. If that's genuinely the case you're better off starting practicing that earlier than later, surely?
It's not like there isn't a better underlying point that could have been discussed (forcing STEM on kids) but the author didn't.
One thing to note though. If you force your kid to code they may end up hating it just like some people hate maths because it was forced upon them when they were too young to appreciate it.
Teaching kids to code is not about turning everyone into a software engineer/programmer/developer . It is about providing a key skill required to work in whatever field in a world that is becoming more "software defined" .
Kids who grow up with these skills will have an advantage over those who need start later in life .
Magazines like Slate should not be posting incoherent opinion pieces when the whole industry is trying to up-skill the populace with job oriented skills.
Absolutely teach your kid (if they are actually interested) to code. It doesn't matter that they'll write horrible, barely functional code. That's how we all start.
They don't have to learn "proper" long-term coding etiquette - if they choose to do it professionally they would have plenty of time & opportunities to learn that.
Just get them started anywhere so that that kindling of interest can grow and they can make their mistakes and learn from them in a safe environment.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/09/savin...
"..a software developer’s proper role [is] to create tools that removed the need for software developers."
"Good coders don’t just get something to work. They want it to be good.
That feeling of quality is the hardest thing for many developers to master. Well-designed code feels good to work with, and ugly code will make developers involuntarily cringe. [..] Learning to trust that aesthetic feeling is as much a part of development as any algorithm or coding pattern."
Some comments were about how the author says that people should teach problem solving, but he actually proposes to teach an appreciation of quality and deep inspection.
Another commented
> Next up, "I won't teach my kids arithmetic, and neither should you."
And this would apply depending how you teach arithmetic (also most people will never need to code, everyone will need to do a lot of basic home finance) if you want your child to become a mathematician then teaching multiplication tables and long division are very inefficient focuses.
I agree with this article that some organisations (and parents) are too focused on practical programming skills at a far too young of an age, but that doesn't mean that showing some basic stuff isn't a good idea. Ideally I'd like my kids to be exposed to many different experiences, including the experience of making a computer "do stuff".
I wrote a brief article on this last year: https://arp242.net/weblog/kids-programming.html
I both believe that this is really valuable and that "just programming" non a good subject for kids.
By this I mean that if you learn how to do some small game and animation in a simple graphical environment you learn neither to program nor how to use a complex and rich tool.
It is a typical story in programming courses, as far as I know, there are those who have a lot of experience, some experience and no experience; those with some programming experience are the most likely to fail know just enough to be bored by the introduction and not enough to avoid the mistakes.
I also had a copy of some version of RPG Maker that could use Ruby for the in-game scripts. Building games in an environment like that -- even if it only requires a little bit of programming -- is still a great way to get children to sit down and focus on solving a problem.
What will the jobs that exist in 20 years require? Probably not as much coding as some people think. It's still good for people to understand how code/computers work, but I see too much focus on coding these days (I work in edtech).
Nowadays with Excel & SQL people off the street can get a lot done in the application space.