Disclaimer: I worked on Code.org's beginner tutorials.
Why do you assume that there is some sinister agenda? Why can't you believe that a couple of smart, charming, and lucky brothers decided to spend some of their wealth and time doing what they feel is right? Why can't you believe that some of the smart & lucky folks they've made friends with in their careers want to help?
It's no secret: Better computer science education is beneficial for tech companies. These companies want more engineers. Does the involvement of volunteers from Microsoft/Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc instantly mean that everyone of us at Code.org that really believes we're helping students world wide are bad people for choosing to accept (or soliciting) help from large, influential organizations? Does institutional or celebrity support inherently corrupt philanthropic endeavors? That's such an insane world view to me.
By the way, the word "code" is a marketing decision. It's easier and more fun to say. It's a catchy domain name. It's not about correctness, it's about being impactful.
If you want to support this, but you have concerns, then maybe you should do some research before spreading FUD. Curriculum details are widely available: http://code.org/educate
Tutorials vary wildly in goals, approaches, quality, scope, etc. You can find many at http://code.org/learn including our own (open source github.com/code-dot-org/) and many others, generally utilizing JavaScript or other non-proprietary technology.
Why do you assume that there is some sinister agenda? Why can't you believe that a couple of smart, charming, and lucky brothers decided to spend some of their wealth and time doing what they feel is right? Why can't you believe that some of the smart & lucky folks they've made friends with in their careers want to help?
It's no secret: Better computer science education is beneficial for tech companies. These companies want more engineers. Does the involvement of volunteers from Microsoft/Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc instantly mean that everyone of us at Code.org that really believes we're helping students world wide are bad people for choosing to accept (or soliciting) help from large, influential organizations? Does institutional or celebrity support inherently corrupt philanthropic endeavors? That's such an insane world view to me.
By the way, the word "code" is a marketing decision. It's easier and more fun to say. It's a catchy domain name. It's not about correctness, it's about being impactful.
If you want to support this, but you have concerns, then maybe you should do some research before spreading FUD. Curriculum details are widely available: http://code.org/educate
Tutorials vary wildly in goals, approaches, quality, scope, etc. You can find many at http://code.org/learn including our own (open source github.com/code-dot-org/) and many others, generally utilizing JavaScript or other non-proprietary technology.