Code is “making” because we’ve figured out how to package it up into discrete units and sell it, and because it is widely perceived to be done by men.Chachra, Debbie. “Why i Am Not a Maker.” The Atlantic, 23 Jan. 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/why-i-am-not-a-maker/384767/.
As a potential computer science major and as a student who has used programming language for the past 7 years, this quote grabbed my attention. This quote made me think what the standard for making would be. The writer mentions later on in her article, coding can be “eliciting a specific, desired set of behaviors from computing devices”, hence, coding can be also considered as education. In Korean, which is my native language, the word for software engineer includes the word “maker”. If we translate the word literally, it would be software maker. Korean students who want to print 3D models or learn code go to an open space named “Maker Space”. These examples show how people view others with computer related jobs as “makers”. I myself am a person who produces code, and I agree with the idea that code is something which people build out of nothing. However, contrary to the verb “producing”, coding is also education, which is learning how to communicate with machines and computers. After all, we call code “programming language”, and language is not something that we make, but is something we use and learn.
Under the huge category of Digital (Arts &) Humanities, I would like to go through more arguments related to what the standard of “maker” is. It is interesting to learn about other people’s thoughts are about an area of study that I am trying to pursue. Other than the theoretical part of the course, I am also excited to use 3D modeling programs like SketchUp to build real life artifacts and learn how to use the different computational tools to learn more about various educational fields. Our first assignment to build our childhood home was very interesting and enjoyable, and I look forward to using these tools more!