Vee, Annette

Name not available

Conclusion: The Role of Computational Literacy in Computers and Writing\ud
\ud

Coding Values in The Role of Computational Literacy in Computers and Writing

D-Scholarship@Pitt

 ConclusionAnnette Vee, University of PittsburghProgramming has undeniably made its way into Computers and Writing through our research and teaching, butthe role of computational literacy in the field is still in flux. Although we have offered arguments for the importanceof computational literacy or competency, we have not offered solutions for how and where to teach this criticalskill. We offer only suggestions: the digital literacy requirement that Losh mentions is just one administrativeattempt to give students outside of computer science access to programming. Many of us in the field have foundspace in our syllabi for basic web design or graphical programming in Processing, even if we do not all teachRuby like Stolley. Yet these practices cannot scale up to 50 sections of first year composition, or across to ourcolleagues who are expert teachers of writing but not as skilled in digital forms of composition.What, then, should we teach about programming in our writing classes? As Lockett argues, the politics of softwareshape our compositions and communications, and we cannot fail to grasp the basic socio-technical mechanismsbehind that. If we consider critical thinking part of our composition teaching mission, critical thinking about oursoftware now seems tantamount to critical thinking about other forms of media that we currently teach in ourclasses.But teaching programming per se? Given the diversity of approaches to composition across our field—fromrhetorical argument to multimodality to critical engagement—it would be folly to propose a one-size-fits-all solutionfor how we might fit computational literacy into composition. Each university and each instructor must consider theconcerns, futures, and backgrounds of their students along with their local resources before coming toconclusions about the role of computational literacy in their courses.For now, we hope this collection of provocations has helped put computational literacy on the map of the field ofComputers and Writing, but also of writing studies more generally. The algorithmic processes of programmingnow form a new ground for writing—one that might make us anxious, but one that should invigorate us as well. Weteach and compose in writing, and as we expand the modes by which we define writing, we expand its potentialas an informational art.‹ Elizabeth Losh: The Anxiety of Programming: Why Teachers Should Relax and Administrators Should WorryupWorks Cited ›Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 1

Conclusion: The Role of Computational Literacy in Computers and Writing

 Annette Vee: Coding ValuesAnnette Vee, University of PittsburghToday I want to talk about good code. Experienced programmers often think about what good code is. But theyrarely agree.And here’s what I want to say: they don’t agree on what good code is because there is no good code. Or, rather,there is no Platonic Ideal of Good Code. Like writing, there is no good code without context.Unfortunately, when good code is talked about, it is often talked about as if there’s no rhetorical dimension tocode. It’s talked about as though the context of software engineering were the only context in which anyone couldever write code. As if digital humanists, biologists, web hackers, and sociologists couldn’t possibly bring their ownvalues to code.I’ll give you just a couple of examples of how this happens, and what this means for us in computers and writing.One of the earlier articulations of the supposed Platonic Ideal of Good Code was Edsger Dijkstra’s infamous“GOTO considered harmful” dictum, from 1968.This article railed against unstructured programming and the GOTO command for its ability to jump from oneplace in a program to another without logical program flow. Dijkstra’s assertion was so provocative that “considered harmful” soapboxes have proliferated in programming literature and the Web and the “harm” doneby goto has been hilariously depicted in an XKCD comic. Many of us first learned the joy of coding through the 1 / 6 languages that used the GOTO command such as BASIC. But Dijkstra’s statement suggests that the context ofthe software production workplace should override all other possible values for code. This is fine—as far as it goes,which is software engineering and computer science. But this kind of statement of values is often taken outside ofthose contexts and applied in other places where code operates. When that happens, the values of hacking forfun or for other fields are devalued in favor of the best practices of software engineering—that is, proper planning,careful modularity, and unit testing. The popular Ruby figure who went by the name “Why the Lucky Stiff” makesthis point about conflicting values between software engineering and hacking forcefully and whimsically in “ThisHack Was Not Properly Planned.”Here’s a more recent invocation of the Platonic Ideal of Good Code. In this comment, we can see that the valuesof software engineering are more tacit, and more problematic:Every piece of academic code I have ever seen has been an unmitigated nightmare. The sciences are theworst, but even computer science produces some pretty mind-crushing codebases.-”Ender7” on HackerNews“Ender7” is replying here to a thread about a recent Scientific American story that suggested scientists werereluctant to release the code they used to reach their conclusions, in part because they were “embarrassed bythe ‘ugly’ code they write for their own research.” According to Ender7, they should be ashamed of their code.Ender7 goes on to say:So, I don’t blame them for being embarassed to release their code. However, to some degree it’s all falsemodesty since all of their colleagues are just as bad.Why is academic code an “unmitigated nightmare” to Ender7? Because it’s not properly following the rules ofsoftware engineering.  Again, the rules of software engineering presumably work well for them. I’m not qualifiedto comment on that. But that doesn’t mean that those values work for other contexts as well, such as biology. Inthis example, software engineering’s values of modularity, security, and maintainability might be completelyirrelevant to the scientist writing code for an experiment. If scientists take care to accommodate these irrelevantvalues, they may never finish the experiment, and therefore never contribute to the knowledgebase of their ownfield. The question, then, isn’t about having good values in code; it’s about which values matter.We often hear how important it is to have proper grammar and good writing skills, as if these practices had norhetorical dimension, as if they existed in a right or wrong space. But we know from writing studies that contextmatters. Put another way: like grammar, code is also rhetorical. What is good code and what is bad code shouldbe based on the context in which the code operates. Just as rhetorical concepts of grammar and writing help us to 2 / 6 think about the different exigencies and contexts of different populations of writers, a rhetorical concept of codecan help us think about the different values for code and different kinds of coders.And this is how coding values are relevant to us in computers and writing. The contingencies and contexts forwhat constitutes good code isn’t always apparent to someone just beginning to learn to code, in part because thevoices of people like Ender7 can be so loud and so insistent. We know from studies on teaching grammar andwriting that the overcorrective tyranny of the red pen can shut writers down. Empirical studies indicate it’s nodifferent with code. Certainly there are ways of writing code that won’t properly communicate with the computer.But the circle of valid expressions for the computer is much, much larger than Ender7 or Dijkstra insist upon.To close, I want to share with you a bit of what might be considered very ugly code, a small Logo program I call,tongue-in-cheek, “codewell”: 3 / 6 This is bad code because:it is uncommented and hard to readit is in an old, seldom-used languageit is baggy and has repeated statements that should be rewritten as functionsit is not modular or reusableit is an “unmitigated nightmare”If you run the code [on github here] in a LOGO interpreter, it looks like this:So, in addition to saying my code sucks, you could also say this: 4 / 6 it could be used to teach people some things about functions and codeit is a start for a LOGO library of letters that might be kind of coolit does what I want it to do, namely, make my argument in code form.Let’s imagine a world where coding is more accessible, where more people are able to use code to contribute topublic discourse or solve their own problems, or just say what they want to say. For that to happen, we need towiden the values associated with the practice of coding. 5 / 6 To Edsger Dijkstra, I’d say: coding values that ignore rhetorical contexts and insist on inflexible best practices orplatonic ideals of code should be considered harmful – at least to the field of computers and writing.‹ David M. Rieder: Programming Is the New Ground of Writing upMark Sample: 5 BASIC Statements onComputational Literacy ›Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 6 / 6

Conclusion: The Role of Computational Literacy in Computers and Writing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Name not available

Name not available

D-Scholarship@Pitt

D-Scholarship@Pitt