Learn to code

The argument

Learning to code is a smart and practical way to spent time while stuck inside and online during the lockdown. This is based on the idea that the virtual world will be a bigger part of life after the pandemic and knowing code will be a desirable skill. Coding provides the building blocks of the virtual world. Without code there would be no internet, no computer games, no apps, no online shopping, no instant communication and so on. If it's virtual it requires coding. Code is the foundation of virtual space and therefore a vital part of our lives. Even before lockdown, coding was becoming an increasingly important skill to learn. In 2016, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted that software developer jobs will increase by 24% by 2026. This will be amplified in a post coronavirus world where we will depend even more on virtual technologies, knowledge of code will prove to be an invaluable skill. Job markets are certain to change as the pandemic challenges the structure of our daily lives, and more virtual life will require more employment in creating and maintaining the integrity of the virtual world. Coding is going to be an increasingly marketable skill as its need grows, so taking this time to learn some coding skill will be beneficial in the long term.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The argument establishes that coding is useful, which nobody disputes, and does not establish what the question asks: that it is among the most useful things to learn *while social distancing*. Every claim made would have been equally true in 2015 or 2025. Nothing about lockdown makes coding more learnable, more valuable or more urgent, whereas the rival positions name skills whose relevance is specific to the circumstances — mental-health and mood skills for prolonged isolation, domestic skills for months spent at home, languages for a period when travel had stopped. An argument for a perennially useful skill is not an argument about this period. The foundational claim also proves less than it appears to. That there would be no internet, apps or online shopping without code establishes that coding underlies the digital world; it does not establish that most people benefit from writing it, any more than the indispensability of electrical engineering implies that everyone should learn it. Depending on something is not a reason to produce it. The employment projection is being asked to do work it cannot. A twenty-four per cent growth forecast is a labour-market statistic about professional software developers, and the distance between 'learned some coding during lockdown' and an employable developer is measured in years of practice, portfolio work and, for most entrants, credentials. The argument moves from a statistic about a career to a recommendation about a few months of self-teaching without acknowledging the gap. And the forecast has aged badly in the specific way that matters here. The software labour market contracted sharply amid widespread layoffs across 2022 to 2024, and the arrival of capable code generation has affected the value of routine entry-level programming ability most of all — which is precisely the level the argument recommends acquiring.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That coding underlies the digital world establishes its importance, not that most people benefit from writing it, any more than the importance of electrical engineering implies everyone should learn it — and nothing in the premise is specific to social distancing, which is what the question asks about. [Rejecting P2] The projection is a labour-market statistic about professional developers, and a few months of self-teaching does not produce one. The forecast has also aged poorly: the software labour market contracted sharply amid widespread layoffs across 2022–24, and capable code generation has particularly affected the value of routine entry-level programming ability, which is the level being recommended.