If you were aware of Bret's previous work, then you would know that he's got nothing against code.org specifically. He's addressing the culture. He's been talking about Mindstorms and programming literacy since before code.org existed. He totally agrees that people should learn programming, and he has no problem with the word "code." He simply disagrees with the motivation—he thinks (and I agree) that people should learn to program because it helps people think, and helps people learn. Not because programming is profitable.
Also, you completely misunderstood the bit about will.i.am. It was a compliment, not an insult. He was saying that will.i.am has a better opinion on programming, as a musician, than all of these other people who should know better (public policy makers and programmers).
> he thinks (and I agree) that people should learn to program because it helps people think, and helps people learn.
Read it again. He specifically called that out as a terrible idea.
Bret believes in Seymour Papert's vision, where coding is not an end in itself, but a vessel for experiential learning about important ideas in mathematics and other fields.
I think you misunderstood me. When I said "helps people think/learn", I meant by USING programming, not by being TREATED with programming. This is the same distinction Bret is trying to make.
I'm interested: what is it about the wrd 'code' that you think people don't like? Do you think such people are generally coming from an elitist view, or just a pedantic one?
Also, you completely misunderstood the bit about will.i.am. It was a compliment, not an insult. He was saying that will.i.am has a better opinion on programming, as a musician, than all of these other people who should know better (public policy makers and programmers).