I used to joke with my wife that when I turned 40 I'd have to grow a ponytail to still be considered relevant as a programmer. My 40th birthday was a decade ago and I haven't had to grow the ponytail yet.

The book "Decline and Fall of the American Programmer" was written in 1992. The author got it wrong because he didn't understand how the Internet, smart phones, and now "smart everything" were going to push software into so much of our lives. He was wrong in 1992 and you can find slashdot articles saying pretty much the same thing in the early 2000s. They were wrong too.

How long will software people be in demand? Who can say? Based on the last 50 years or so the demand has been pretty good (with some downturns here and there). Yes, ageism is a danger and yes you may find yourself with skills no longer needed, but looking forward there aren't many vocation choices that don't involve some sort of risk.

If you're good at it, keep your skills fresh, and pick good companies to work for, you can make a career out of it. Having other skills doesn't hurt either.

While I don't think that a huge emphasis on coding for kids (who aren't otherwise interested) is a good idea, they should definitely get some exposure to it. Just like they should get exposure to art, music, literature, or even robotics. I also believe that there are huge opportunities for those who can combine programming with expertise in another field.

I have a son who is in his early teens. He really has no idea what wants to do for a living yet and that's fine. He has a vague notion that he might want to do something with computers. He's a reasonably smart kid but I don't think that's his calling. He's kinda sorta interested in electronics and will mess around with Lego Mindstorms with some prompting. He's had a little experience with programming but doesn't have nearly the excitement over it that I did at his age. Still, I've encouraged him to take a one semester course at his high school. I think that will tell him if coding is something he wants to pursue further or not, even as a hobby.

Their eyes wouldn't glaze over looking at this?

write.table(rbind.fill(lapply(list.files("."), read.delim)), sep="\t")

That's a lot of operations to complete a simple task. Here's an alternative for DOS if you don't like linux:

copy /b *.txt newfile.txt

I'm sure it could be accomplished in a more straight forward manor in powershell too. I guess I just don't find it a compelling example of how R can increase your productivity. I see it as an example of code that's not very readable. ;) Now, I don't remember enough R to know that if the files have headers and the columns are in a different order in each file if that command would automatically put them together with the columns sorted out. That may be something R could do easier than other scripting languages.

Though lots of people never venture into the world of the terminal, it's actually easy to explain what it does and how to use it, - simpler to explain than what all the windows in RStudio are for.

It sounded like the article was pushing a career in data analytics using R as a tool as much as anything else. Those people might have a longer shelf life than a typical programmer but yeah, they should be ready to move on to something else before R starts to become irrelevant. It's hard to know when that will happen. It's already been around a long time and seems to be getting more popular.

If the files are all already tab delimited wouldn't it be easier to concatenate them together from the command line like this?

cat *txt > all.txt

Otherwise, I'm not sure it's a great choice. For the typical business person who's interested in coding you might as well start with VBA in Excel or Google Apps Script if you've moved away from MS Office to Google's business apps. Google Apps Script is javascript based so you have the advantage of learning something that has other applications.

R is very good at manipulating and plotting data but the charts produced aren't always of the highest quality. They're fine for internal use. There are lots of packages to extend the usefulness of the language but at its heart and soul it's about numbers and plots. It's not really a general purpose language. Just keep that in mind.

Apparently the zealots didn't understand agile very well or they would have been able to answer your questions.

Agile doesn't mean there is no plan. Agile just acknowledges that the larger the set of requirements and the longer the timeline, the less likely it is that those requirements are going to be accurate (or won't change) and that the timeline will be met.

So rather than trying to establish all the requirements up front and then delivering when all those requirements have been completed, the idea is to focus on a minimal set of requirements in each cycle or iteration. Cycles are short, - a month at most. Prioritization is key.

Do you have or have you ever had teenagers? Here is my real world experience: "Learn hard lesson. Do the same stupid thing the next day."

You may be content to trust that a hormone engorged and not fully developed brain will remember to shut the garage door. I'd prefer a little insurance.

As for the rest of your comments, I could quite easily survive on the technology that was around in the 60's when I was born, but I recognize that technology can both make things better and make them worse. I see having the door unlock automatically as I approach with an armful of stuff as a helpful application of technology.

Not taking medications at the right time in the proper dosage is a huge problem for seniors. The blister pack can't flash or sound an alarm when it's past time to take the meds. It can't notify a caretaker/relative/friend if a senior has missed one or more scheduled times. It can't stop someone from taking the morning and lunch time meds together if they are not supposed to but they forgot in the morning.

Went went through this with my mom about 6 years ago. She was starting to suffer from Alzheimer's but we wanted to keep in her own home if possible. At the same time we couldn't have someone with her 24 hours a day.

We had an automated pill dispenser at the time that came with a dialup service that was quite expensive. It was difficult to set up and the notifications had to go through a 3rd party and was not very flexible. Even with those limitations and caveats it was much better then a blister pack. And what is possible today could be so much better.

Actually I see a lot of potential for smart homes to help people lead more independent lives further into their old age.

Kid leaves garage door open, stuff gets stolen over night
A/C comes on while windows/doors are open
I'm on vacation, water leak floods home
Forget to lock doors when leaving house
Forget to turn off lights in an unoccupied room
Walk up to the house with an arm full of stuff and the door is locked
Aging person has lots of medications but frequently forgets to take them or can't remember if they did


All it takes is a little imagination to realize how automation could solve problems and make things more convenient. Usability, expense, data privacy, standards are all issues that need to be tackled but it will happen.

I could argue that those are different things entirely but instead let's assume that more tolerance and acceptance of people with Aspergers is something that society should move towards. It won't happen overnight. You must manage with the hand that was dealt to you, - not the one you wish you had.

For example I don't have Aspergers but I was very shy as a kid. As a teenaged boy this does not lead to many dates. I used to get upset over the expectation that the boy had to be the one to make the first move. "They can come to me" was my attitude. You can imagine how well that worked.

Eventually rather than lamenting over the way the world operated and that it wasn't fair to people like me, I figured out that with some effort I could learn to be more charming and outgoing, -even with people I didn't know. It's gotten much easier and I'm much more confident, but I'm still envious of the people for whom it seems to be effortless and who apparently thrive on those same social interactions that I find challenging.

You left off some key words in my post: "I can't imagine that THIS is an inherent advantage...". I was referring to the ability to take multiple pictures in the span of a few seconds, - nothing else.

That was the topic of the post I was responding to.

I don't think sensor size has much to do with it.

Those things have something to do with a smartphone supposedly not being able to take 2 pictures within 10 seconds?

I'm not sure I understand how this is any harder to achieve with a smart phone. My phone is rarely turned completely off and I can access the camera feature without even unlocking tit. I can easily take 2 pictures within 10 seconds and with burst mode I can get 10 within 1 second.

Even if I'm missing something I can't imagine that this is an inherent advantage to a dedicated camera that improvements in technology won't eliminate.

We only homeschooled for a year but here's how I see it:

Pros:
Academics - sky is the limit
Flexible Schedule
Can be tailored to suit the individual child
Have more control over who your kid spends their time with*


Cons:
Danger of controlling too much of your child's life*
Expense - you've got to provide all your own materials
Have to be careful of materials and programs made available to homeschoolers, - often have a political bent
Takes a lot of time to prepare and execute, - especially as the kids get older

He was in public school through second grade. Kindergarten and 1st grade were great. He had awesome teachers. In the 2nd grade he ended up with a teacher in poor health that probably should have retired 5 years prior. It was not a great year and my wife had always wanted to try to homeschool but I was skeptical. So in 3rd grade he stayed at home.

Overall it went pretty well. There are tons of resources available to help however you must pay attention. My wife wanted to send our son to this 2 hour "science club" thing that met a couple of times a week. At first glance it sounded great until I read through all the literature. Turns out the guy taught Intelligent Design. I just about lost it. Some other home schoolers had recommended him to my wife. People homeschool for a variety of reasons but for a fair number it's because they don't like what is taught in public schools. I'm a fairly liberal guy. Hanging around that crowd was a tough thing for me at times and it was a source of tension between my wife and I.

My son is a social kid and he wanted to go back to school after a year. So for 4th grade, we found a private school with a small class size that seemed like a good fit. He was there through 8th grade but we often questioned whether it was worth the money, - especially once he got to middle school. From a math and science perspective he probably would have been better off in a public school.

We have neighbors with a large family that also homeschool. Once the oldest got to be about 12, he wanted to go to a school and the rest of them kind of followed suit once they got older. They're great kids. We know other families too where the results have definitely been more of a mixed bag. With one family in particular the kids are very accomplished in some areas while severely lacking in others, but that may have happened no matter where they went to school.

My take away from all of this is that success can be had in public, private, or home schools but it depends on the schools, the parents, and most of all the kid.