When I returned I read the article Viewpoint: Computer code frees us to think in new ways by Tom Armitage in the BBC.  In it he very eloquently argues that programming is as much about design as engineering, writing:

A great deal of it is much more like sculpture. Data, technology, code, as a slab of clay, to be manipulated, explored, felt between your fingers, and slowly turned into something substantive.

It’s practically the opposite of engineering. It’s an artistic discipline: beginning with sketching and exploring, and then building on those sketches slowly through iteration, watching a final structure emerge.

He then goes on to argue that everyone needs to know more than just computer literacy, because computers and code are like prostheses for people.  As he says:

The magic of these prostheses – the magic that lies at the heart of true innovation – is not necessarily just doing things faster. It is giving us the ability to think new thoughts.

The convergence of these two things in my life got me thinking about people who aren’t computer scientists, or even identify as programmers, but nevertheless would like to program.  Mark Guzdial has written extensively about this, most recently here, so I won’t rehash a lot of the ideas.  But what strikes me this time is that it’s not just computer scientists who are suggesting that learning to program is worthwhile.  Political scientists, like my sister, recognize that programming would open up new worlds for them, and they want to be a part of it.  I find that to be interesting, since real change only happens when people are ready and embrace it.  The innovation that would arise from social scientists (and artists and others) learning to program makes me excited for the future.