Should linguists be able to program?
There are crudely four categories of person in this debate:
1) Linguists who CAN program and think it IS useful
2) Linguists who CANNOT program and think it IS useful
3) Linguists who CAN program and think it IS NOT useful
4) Linguists who CANNOT program and think it IS NOT useful
Geoffrey Sampson and myself are included in category (1).
Because we know and understand what programming is, we can
appreciate its benefits.
But our opinion is not so interesting: it is predictable.
(At least, I am mystified that people seem to want to disagree.)
People in category (4) seem to be a large group, and their
opinion is also predictable: how can a non-programmer really
appreciate the value of programming? Not easily, of course.
Why? Because they don't understand it! (They may think they
do, but only people in categories (1) and (3) really do.)
The only interesting opinions are categories (2) and (3),
because they are more rare, and provocative.
Of those two, category (3) is the more interesting because
it is more knowledgeable.
It is tho opinions of those people that could contribute most
to such a debate as this one.
People in categories (1) and (4) have opinions which are not
really worth repeating too often: we all know them already,
and they are predictable and not subtle or novel.
So once Geoffrey Sampson stated his view, that was enough.
Other people in category (1), like me, feel no need to reiterate it.
Listening to people in category (1), like me, when they go on
about it too much, is a bit like
listening to people who go on holiday every year to Tuscany
and bore everybody with stories about how wonderful it is.
So after this message I'm going to keep my mouth shut! :-)
Listening to people in category (4) on the other hand,
is like listening to people who never go abroad on holiday,
but are nevertheless full of opinions about how dirty
foreigners are and how disgusting their food is.
Why do people insist on talking about what they do not know?
I suppose we all have to share opinions in order to shape future
generations; we have to decide what to teach them.
That is the purpose of this debate I guess, so it is important.
But it is teachers, who already know, who have to decide:
students cannot decide what to learn because they cannot
make an informed choice because they do not know anything yet.
That's why universities are hierarchical, and not democratic.
It's the way they should be -- trust the people who know,
because there's nobody better.
Sorry if that sounds arrogant :-(
David Moffat