I remember the first time I used programming at work too. I worked in a marketing agency as a PC operator. The two tasks I had were:
* print enormous text files with tables showing survey data.
* put a long list of .gif files each one on its own .ppt file (yes, as ridiculous as it sounds).
For the first problem I did two little Pascal programs. The first measured the files and calculated the best settings for the printer (it used to be a try and error process). The second, I did another little Pascal program that added page numbers to the files, so when the printer got stuck (or the pages got mixed) it was easy to resume instead of starting over.
For the second problem, it did an MS Office Macro.
I stopped programming at the office because one of my coworkers asked me to stop because "we are all going to be out of work" (sic).
That is when I learnt the importance of knowing how to code.
"one of my coworkers asked me to stop because 'we are all going to be out of work'."
This is the argument of the anti-technologist, sometimes called the "Luddite fallacy" [1].
Somehow these people think that the time freed by automating menial and repetitive tasks can't be used to do more productive or additional tasks, or heighten the ability and/or education of the workers.
While that's true; If you look at how the surplus of productivity generated by technology was distributed among the members of the society in the last 30 years, you will notice that, maybe, she was right.
Who got benefited from the increase in productivity I generated with the automation I made? The owners of the company.
I automated an entire department down to a single person (me) -- this was during a severe downturn for the business with layoffs left at right. I didn't quite feel I was putting others out of work, as two jumped ship and one was retired out (comfortably).
I even significantly improved timeliness and accuracy. And I absorbed a major change in inputs that likely would not have been accommodate-able under the old system. Turned one of the high-priced consultants onto a reporting package that greatly improved their life feeding upper Management endless varieties of ad hoc reports. Etc.
And... this senior management, brought in from outside due to the share price, set up separate reporting channels using their people, and eventually laid me off.
These days, with so much top-down control, it's often a matter of who you know more that what, and how you are perceived. I was very good at what I did, but from their perspective, I was a "grunt" and a replaceable cog.
In the mainstream work environment, you can indeed work yourself right out of a job, especially if perceptions of you don't match a profile that Management is used to respecting and promoting.
I know I often come across as cynical, here. And certainly, I bring my own faults to the table. But... experience has shown me that these days, still, image often outshines talent in the job market.
* print enormous text files with tables showing survey data.
* put a long list of .gif files each one on its own .ppt file (yes, as ridiculous as it sounds).
For the first problem I did two little Pascal programs. The first measured the files and calculated the best settings for the printer (it used to be a try and error process). The second, I did another little Pascal program that added page numbers to the files, so when the printer got stuck (or the pages got mixed) it was easy to resume instead of starting over.
For the second problem, it did an MS Office Macro.
I stopped programming at the office because one of my coworkers asked me to stop because "we are all going to be out of work" (sic).
That is when I learnt the importance of knowing how to code.