Computer Programming or Software Development

My friend Pat Yongpradit has a post on LinkedIn that got me thinking. It starts with a key statement “Computer programming (coding) is not equal to software development.” Now I tend to think of those as similar if not identical but Pat points out that “Computer programmers and software developers are codified differently in the BLS data” BLS is the US Bureau of Labor Statistics BTW.

Interesting. So what is the difference? Computer programmers write code. The BLS describes computer programmers:

Computer programmers write, modify, and test code and scripts that allow computer software and applications to function properly.

Software Developers do more. The BLS describes software developers as follows:

Research, design, and develop computer and network software or specialized utility programs. Analyze user needs and develop software solutions, applying principles and techniques of computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis. Update software or enhance existing software capabilities. May work with computer hardware engineers to integrate hardware and software systems, and develop specifications and performance requirements. May maintain databases within an application area, working individually or coordinating database development as part of a team.

‘A lot more words in that second job description. The BLS projects growth in the need for software developers and a decline in the need for computer programmers. I’m not so optimistic. My read on many of the layoffs in tech companies appear to me to be more about declining numbers of software developers. I could be wrong and maybe there are/were a lot more people just doing computer programming than I think. The industry keeps changing.

In my very first software jobs, back in the late 1970s, I would characterize my work under the software development description. While I did do some programming from specifications and design documents written by others (computer programming) I rapidly moved into meeting with users, analyzing needs, and designing and developing software and utility programs. Job titles may have been different but that was the work.

What may happen is that software development involves less coding than it has in the past because of AI. At least coding by humans. So BLS is probably right about a decline in the need for computer programmers. At the same time, if software developers spend less time doing actual coding they may have more time for higher level (if that is the right term) thinking and involvement in design. Unless AI starts doing more of that. So maybe we will not need more of them. Or perhaps AI will make it possible for more people to be software developers who wouldn’t be that now. We’ll see I guess.

My undergraduate degree is in Systems. One of the goals of the program was to train people to interface between most people and computer systems. In other words, to understand the needs that people/businesses have and translate it into what computer programmers need to know to write software. For a long time, that sort of work involved two sides and sometimes three. That is to say, sometimes there was a user/client, and analyst, and a programmers. Sometimes the latter two roles were one person.

Knowing how to write code was always essential because code is the language of computer science. Not knowing how to code was seriously limiting for someone trying to design software. I think that is always going to be the case at some level. So I think software developers, even those who prompt AIs, will always need to know some coding. More than just coding though, I think that students, anyone who is going to interact with computers and that incudes, of course, software developers, needs to have a background in computer science.

Computer science is not just coding but having an understanding of how computers work. What is computer logic? What is computational anyway? AIs have a lot to learn and people with a computer science understanding are who AI is going to learn from. We need to think of K-12 computer science as computer science – foundational ideas and concepts – and not just a class in how to write code. We need to prepare people to be software developers not computer programmers.

Mike Zamansky has a couple of recent posts on why CS still matters in schools that I think are worth a read:

• Why CS Still Matters
• More on why teaching CS matters

Interested in seeing what the BLS thinks of employment changes because of AI? Check out Incorporating AI impacts in BLS employment projections: occupational case studies

Selling AI Before It’s Time

Artificial Intelligence has been big in the news the last few days. A lot of the talk has been about the Trump administration designating Anthropic a supply chain risk. The US  Department of Defense (its official legal name) was unable to agree to contract terms with Anthropic. You can read Anthropic’s statement here. Statement on the comments from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth

There are apparently two sticking points. 

The use of Anthropic’s AI model, Claude:for:

• the mass domestic surveillance of Americans
• fully autonomous weapons.

The first on general principal. The second because Anthropic does not believe that AI is ready for handling fully autonomous weapons. I’m surprised (OK not really) that the first is an issue because the DoD says that using it for mass domestic surveillance would be illegal (probably true) and that they would not do it. Well, some of us remember the CIA snarfing up data on Americans by getting data from overseas so I can see why Anthropic might want more assurances than “trust me.”

The fully autonomous weapon control is potentially even more concerning. Anthropic doesn’t believe their AI is ready for that. I wonder if it ever will be ready. There are reports that OpenAI’s tools took part in mission planning for the recent strikes against Iran. There are also credible reports that those attacks hit a school and killed over 80 school children.  Did AI pick the targets alone? Was there human oversite? I have no idea but clearly things were missed. At least I hope they were missed. I’d hate to think that event was intentional. Dare we let AI make these decisions?

There have been some studies of AI used in war games. These studies have resulted in headlines like “AI simulations constantly opting for nuclear strikes, terrifying study shows” AI models do not have human sensibilities or share human ideas of going too far. Apparently, these AI tools have not been trained to follow Asimov's Three  Rules of Robotics. I wonder if the people developing AI today are aware of them. I doubt that many government officials are. Nor do they really understand the risks of AI controlling weapons.. No one really does but if the developers behind a tool say it isn’t ready perhaps we should believe them!

I was reminded of the old Paul Masson advertisements where Orson Wells would dramatically declare “We will sell no wine before its time.” The point was not to rush things and to let the process complete until the wine was completely ready. It appears that some people are pushing AI in places where AI is not ready to perform adequately. That is very unlikely to give a good result.