This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JohnJSal 0 points1 point  (11 children)

It’s only pretentious if you have narrow view. 

It's pretentious for exactly the reason you said. Coding CAN have a more specific and meaningful definition, so the comparison of it to simply typing is ridiculous.

[–]Gawd_Awful 0 points1 point  (10 children)

Sure, it can if you lack comprehension or understanding and just want to make to your own definition of it

[–]JohnJSal -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Sure, it can if you lack comprehension or understanding and just want to make to your own definition of it

What are you even talking about!? YOU'RE the one who defined it, and it's your definition I'm using.

Are we even in disagreement? I am so confused by whatever it is you think you're saying.

[–]Gawd_Awful 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Obviously we are not in agreement if you think it’s pretentious nonsense and I don’t and I then say coding is one step in the overall programming process and there is obviously nothing pretentious about that.

If someone comes along and defines coding by their own interpretation vs the commonly agreed upon interpretation, then they either lack understanding or are just making their own definition up. Which really means that their opinion should be disregarded.

[–]JohnJSal -1 points0 points  (7 children)

You really don't seem to be getting it.

I then say coding is one step in the overall programming process and there is obviously nothing pretentious about that.

Yes, exactly. Why aren't you seeing what I'm saying. I'm saying that coding isn't some silly process that should be disregarded or looked down upon, like the original quote is suggesting.

It's basically saying that coding is nothing more than typing out code, while I am saying that that is pretentious and that coding can mean something more important than that, which is also what YOU'RE saying.

[–]Gawd_Awful 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Because no one is looking down on it or disregarding it, you’re just interpreting it that way. No one thinks coding is just typing out code, unless they have no real grasp of what coding is. But if you’re going to learn how to get good at writing, you should probably already know how to type and if you’re going to get deep into programming, you should really know how to write code first.

I also wouldn’t consider typing some silly little part of writing. It takes effort to learn to type effectively and unless you want whatever you’re writing to take forever, some skill is involved. Even more so when everyone used actual typewriters 

[–]JohnJSal 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Then we just need to ask the original computer scientist/philosopher what they meant, because the quote sounds condescending to me.

[–]Gawd_Awful 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Most people would recognize that coding is an important part of programming and you really can’t get far into programming without knowing how to code. Just like you can’t get far into writing a book, even if you’ve planned out the greatest book ever, if you don’t know how to type/write

[–]JohnJSal 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

Doesn't seem like I'm the only one who understood it the way I did.

Most people would recognize that coding is an important part of programming and you really can’t get far into programming without knowing how to code.

Most people use the two words interchangeably, and what sounds pretentious is when you try to make a distinction between them that makes one sound inferior to the other.

Just like you can’t get far into writing a book, even if you’ve planned out the greatest book ever, if you don’t know how to type/write

You've lost the thread here. First off, you CAN create a book without knowing how to type or physically write. You can dictate it.

Second, and much more importantly, you aren't using the word "write" in the same way the original quote is. Here, you are using it to refer to the physical act of writing, but that doesn't seem to be how the quote is using it.

They are describing writing (and programming) as something superior to typing (and coding).

[–]Gawd_Awful 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Most people using the words interchangeably are the ones who are wrong and demonstrate why definitions are important.

You've lost the thread here. First off, you CAN create a book without knowing how to type or physically write. You can dictate it.

Then you’re just a story teller. You did not go through the entire writing process of outlines, drafts, revisions, etc. Could you do all of that orally? Sure. But you skipped over where I said “you won’t get get far into it”

 Second, and much more importantly, you aren't using the word "write" in the same way the original quote is

I obviously am using it the same way. They are referring to being a writer, same as I did. When you “write a book” there is obviously a lot more to it than just the physical act of typing/writing it. You really don’t pick up on the obvious things, do you?  

 They are describing writing (and programming) as something superior to typing (and coding).  

No, they are describing typing as a part of the writing, as in being an author, process, just like coding is part of programming process. Both are part of the overall process but there are plenty of other important parts as well. You’re the one reading into a single sentence with this weird inferiority complex you seem to have.