"It's sad, but true. The courses that I used to offer here have to come to end. ... Honestly, I thought I might be teaching these courses into my retirement, but the enrollment numbers don't lie. Since 2023, there has been a complete collapse in the market for continuing education."
Personally, I'm finding this kind of story lately shocking and heartbreaking.
I kept coming back to his course listing to find some that were on site, but they were all online. I wanted to take my current team to the same onsite experience I had with Dave over 15 years ago. Classes taught in person are so much better.
Why not write him and ask? He stopped teaching because of a drop in demand. He clearly loves teaching. If you have a team to educate and a budget to pay him for his time and expertise, he might be willing to run a class for your team.
Funny enough, a few months ago we decided to start a new project and we chose async Python. I had no clue how'd work so I decided to read the PEP and learn a bit more. Big was my surprise when I realized I "knew" all the fundamentals just by understanding how coroutines and generators worked low level, thanks to David's talks.
EDIT: His talks about the GIL are also super informative!
Learning itself hasn't fundamentally changed because of AI, period. Anyone claiming otherwise probably isn't thinking seriously about what learning actually is. What has changed is the demand for certain types of courses, especially computer science and programming courses, which has declined significantly. Honestly, this was entirely predictable.
People don't want learn tools anymore. Programming education experienced tremendous growth from the 2000s onward because coding became a valuable skill in the job market. Today, the market has shifted. Learning to code in 2010 is, in many ways, the equivalent of learning to use AI effectively for software development in 2026. The underlying goal is the same: acquiring the skills that employers and the market value.
What's happening to David is the same thing happening to many "learn to code" platforms. Their catalogs were built for a different era, and declining demand reflects changes in the job market, not a decline in people's interest in learning.
Maybe David is simply tired of teaching programming and changing a catalog that he put a lot of hard work for the last 20 years seems like a lot of work, and that's completely fair. But he could also adapt his expertise and content to fit this new reality instead of relying on a curriculum designed for a thriving market that no longer exists.
I took dabeaz's course on the Raft algorithm a few years ago.
It was engaging, challenging, and all the other students were there specifically because they wanted to be there. I've never experienced anything like that in school, it was uniquely motivating.
I always thought I'd get to try his compilers course one day, but I waited too long!
I took Dave’s “Write a compiler” course several years ago, and it was mind-blowing in the absolute best sense of the term. What a great teacher and person.
Programmers are worse off for his retirement, but (given his career change) Chicago-area high school kids are in for a real treat.
Sad to learn that future generations of programmers won’t benefit from learning from him directly. I took his SICP course a couple of years ago after numerous failed attempts at reading the book and even watching the MIT videos. David’s course was the first time the concepts really clicked.
Very sad. I never took his courses, for various reasons, but having something like this as an option available was quite inspiring in my never ending quest to become a better software engineer.
I wish David the best with his new teaching direction.
And I hope David will find a practical way to make these courses available for self-study.
I think that even if you will never code, it will teach you how to think—especially if you also learn math, stats, and other engineering courses.
You start to see patterns that let you understand what input leads to what output, and so to organize your actions in a way that will generate preferred outcomes.
I'd take the whole set if I could. I too am a little dismayed by the state of the world I'd like to see, his courses should be full.
He is as an amazing of a teacher as you would think he is from his publicly available talks. I hope secondary education means middle school, he'd light so many fires.
Noticed a similar thing with calmcode.io, the numbers don't lie. At the same time though, the setup of that site is so light/cheap that it remains zero effort to just keep the tutorials up.
In hindsight, I am _very_ happy that I never made that project into a main source of income.
I do not think this is actually AI: currently, there is a narrative (gradually dying out) that AI will replace software engineers and you don't need CS/Software Engineering education as a result. It's the "leaders" who listen to this.
People still learn math, despite the calculator existing. Accounts still learn accounting, despite Excel and accounting software existing.
If/when it does change in 12-24 months, I think companies need to take a serious look at the people in these “leadership” positions. If the quality of their thinking on big things like this is that bad, and so easily swayed by marketing and hype, then they don’t seem qualified for the positions they’re in.
> People still learn math, despite the calculator existing. Accounts still learn accounting, despite Excel and accounting software existing.
They do, but you need far fewer or none of the original workers whose full-time job this sort of stuff was.
Raw math does not matter, but what you do with it. Similarly, you could earn a (modest) living knowing nothing but raw HTML, JavaScript and a bit of browser tech not too long ago. That is no longer possible.
Programming and software engineering will be devalued. These occupations won't disappear overnight, but you will see compensation and growth stagnate until equilibrium is reached again. Currently, supply outstrips demand, and I do think it is structural, not just hype.
I'm certainly not creative enough, but I currently do not see demand picking up sufficiently; Gen Z is bearish on social media, VR was a bust, blockchain was a bust, software has already penetrated almost all walks of live and lines of work. There is no next big thing (Internet, ...) on the horizon, to unlock the next order of magnitude of demand. There is certainly more work to do still, but it very suddenly does not require the same headcount, but something like 5%-30% less. Lots of the remaining work will be around integrating LLMs into existing software, which does not sound exciting either.
One annoying thing is how long it takes for things to sway back into equilibrium.
It's getting quite exhausting having to endure all these major events of the 21st century and their consequences - 9/11 and the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, covid-19, and now AI.
But I guess it's better than all out war and conquest as was with most of human history.
That's one way to see it. Can't we also imagine that more and more people now rely on AI rather than humans to learn programming (or more accurately learn vibe-coding)?
Your perspective is valid, but personally, I think humans will do better in this area.
The reason is simple: AI only gives you the information it deems necessary and semantically related to your prompt. But humans don't just dig into local details—they give you a broader map. That's what a curriculum does, in a sense.
In that regard, I think human education will shift toward cultivating macro-level insight and perspective.
p.s I'm really amazed that you're the author of the IPython Cookbook. I found that book incredibly useful. The fact that I was able to work as an assistant to data scientists was also based on what I learned from that book. I'm personally a fan of yours, so it's surprising to see you here
I wonder about his marketing channels. If it was primarily SEO, that has taken a huge hit especially for programming related searches since AI answers showed up at the top of the SERP.
What I agree with is that things will come back around in 12 to 24 months.
What I don't agree with is that I also consider this to be AI.
In fact, when you use AI, the stratification of input is very clear. In the end, even in software engineering, the quality of what AI produces depends heavily on how you prompt it. And there's no way around it—AI will inevitably do better than most people. It's pointless to say to an encyclopedia, 'I know more than you.' For a human to beat AI, the only way is to dig deeper into the latest technologies, but that's something only scholars who are up to date with cutting-edge academic trends can do. Most ordinary people won't be able to win against it.
However, I think software engineering will continue to exist. The reason is the stratification of input. In the end, software skills might become something like a subset selection technique for prompting within a specific domain.
"It's sad, but true. The courses that I used to offer here have to come to end. ... Honestly, I thought I might be teaching these courses into my retirement, but the enrollment numbers don't lie. Since 2023, there has been a complete collapse in the market for continuing education."
Personally, I'm finding this kind of story lately shocking and heartbreaking.
I kept coming back to his course listing to find some that were on site, but they were all online. I wanted to take my current team to the same onsite experience I had with Dave over 15 years ago. Classes taught in person are so much better.
Why not write him and ask? He stopped teaching because of a drop in demand. He clearly loves teaching. If you have a team to educate and a budget to pay him for his time and expertise, he might be willing to run a class for your team.
Can we update the title? I was aware of Beazley's programming courses and didn't bother clicking until I read this comment.
David's talks at PyCon are all amazing. My favorite is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCs5OvhV9S4
Funny enough, a few months ago we decided to start a new project and we chose async Python. I had no clue how'd work so I decided to read the PEP and learn a bit more. Big was my surprise when I realized I "knew" all the fundamentals just by understanding how coroutines and generators worked low level, thanks to David's talks.
EDIT: His talks about the GIL are also super informative!
He is a natural born teacher. The kind of person whose excitement and love to share is contagious. Best of luck to him!
I saw some old code of mine that used PLY a few weeks ago and god damn is that a fine library. Fast, to the point, and a beautiful API.
My favourite is lambda calculus in Python. It's something to save for a rainy day and follow along with. Great fun and really enlightening.
Sounds like one of the things where Python's broken/stunted lambdas would really hurt.
Agreed, although expressions and intertools can be a workaround.
he has a way to make it lean and engaging that is very sweet
Learning itself hasn't fundamentally changed because of AI, period. Anyone claiming otherwise probably isn't thinking seriously about what learning actually is. What has changed is the demand for certain types of courses, especially computer science and programming courses, which has declined significantly. Honestly, this was entirely predictable.
People don't want learn tools anymore. Programming education experienced tremendous growth from the 2000s onward because coding became a valuable skill in the job market. Today, the market has shifted. Learning to code in 2010 is, in many ways, the equivalent of learning to use AI effectively for software development in 2026. The underlying goal is the same: acquiring the skills that employers and the market value.
What's happening to David is the same thing happening to many "learn to code" platforms. Their catalogs were built for a different era, and declining demand reflects changes in the job market, not a decline in people's interest in learning.
Maybe David is simply tired of teaching programming and changing a catalog that he put a lot of hard work for the last 20 years seems like a lot of work, and that's completely fair. But he could also adapt his expertise and content to fit this new reality instead of relying on a curriculum designed for a thriving market that no longer exists.
I took dabeaz's course on the Raft algorithm a few years ago.
It was engaging, challenging, and all the other students were there specifically because they wanted to be there. I've never experienced anything like that in school, it was uniquely motivating.
I always thought I'd get to try his compilers course one day, but I waited too long!
All the best to him on his next adventure.
I took Dave’s “Write a compiler” course several years ago, and it was mind-blowing in the absolute best sense of the term. What a great teacher and person.
Programmers are worse off for his retirement, but (given his career change) Chicago-area high school kids are in for a real treat.
Sad to learn that future generations of programmers won’t benefit from learning from him directly. I took his SICP course a couple of years ago after numerous failed attempts at reading the book and even watching the MIT videos. David’s course was the first time the concepts really clicked.
I've decided to go back to graduate school to get my Professional Educator's License in Secondary Education, final destination unknown
He's long been a fabulous teacher to adults; kids will be lucky to have him.
Best wishes to him going forward.
Very sad. I never took his courses, for various reasons, but having something like this as an option available was quite inspiring in my never ending quest to become a better software engineer.
I wish David the best with his new teaching direction. And I hope David will find a practical way to make these courses available for self-study.
I think that even if you will never code, it will teach you how to think—especially if you also learn math, stats, and other engineering courses.
You start to see patterns that let you understand what input leads to what output, and so to organize your actions in a way that will generate preferred outcomes.
I wish there was video material of the courses taught by Dave available for purchase.
You can find some video material from O'Reilly Media
I took the Compilers course with Dave, remote.
I'd take the whole set if I could. I too am a little dismayed by the state of the world I'd like to see, his courses should be full.
He is as an amazing of a teacher as you would think he is from his publicly available talks. I hope secondary education means middle school, he'd light so many fires.
Thanks Dave!
Noticed a similar thing with calmcode.io, the numbers don't lie. At the same time though, the setup of that site is so light/cheap that it remains zero effort to just keep the tutorials up.
In hindsight, I am _very_ happy that I never made that project into a main source of income.
Took the compilers class in 2012 and it was amazing. Loved the immersive format and the fact all the students wanted to be there.
Hope he finds something fulfilling in the days ahead.
Seeing even these experienced professionals quit teaching programming, it seems like AI has had a big impact on the education market
I do not think this is actually AI: currently, there is a narrative (gradually dying out) that AI will replace software engineers and you don't need CS/Software Engineering education as a result. It's the "leaders" who listen to this.
Will change back in 12 - 24 months.
Agreed, it seems like really short-term thinking.
People still learn math, despite the calculator existing. Accounts still learn accounting, despite Excel and accounting software existing.
If/when it does change in 12-24 months, I think companies need to take a serious look at the people in these “leadership” positions. If the quality of their thinking on big things like this is that bad, and so easily swayed by marketing and hype, then they don’t seem qualified for the positions they’re in.
> People still learn math, despite the calculator existing. Accounts still learn accounting, despite Excel and accounting software existing.
They do, but you need far fewer or none of the original workers whose full-time job this sort of stuff was.
Raw math does not matter, but what you do with it. Similarly, you could earn a (modest) living knowing nothing but raw HTML, JavaScript and a bit of browser tech not too long ago. That is no longer possible.
Programming and software engineering will be devalued. These occupations won't disappear overnight, but you will see compensation and growth stagnate until equilibrium is reached again. Currently, supply outstrips demand, and I do think it is structural, not just hype.
I'm certainly not creative enough, but I currently do not see demand picking up sufficiently; Gen Z is bearish on social media, VR was a bust, blockchain was a bust, software has already penetrated almost all walks of live and lines of work. There is no next big thing (Internet, ...) on the horizon, to unlock the next order of magnitude of demand. There is certainly more work to do still, but it very suddenly does not require the same headcount, but something like 5%-30% less. Lots of the remaining work will be around integrating LLMs into existing software, which does not sound exciting either.
One annoying thing is how long it takes for things to sway back into equilibrium.
It's getting quite exhausting having to endure all these major events of the 21st century and their consequences - 9/11 and the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, covid-19, and now AI.
But I guess it's better than all out war and conquest as was with most of human history.
That's one way to see it. Can't we also imagine that more and more people now rely on AI rather than humans to learn programming (or more accurately learn vibe-coding)?
Your perspective is valid, but personally, I think humans will do better in this area.
The reason is simple: AI only gives you the information it deems necessary and semantically related to your prompt. But humans don't just dig into local details—they give you a broader map. That's what a curriculum does, in a sense.
In that regard, I think human education will shift toward cultivating macro-level insight and perspective.
p.s I'm really amazed that you're the author of the IPython Cookbook. I found that book incredibly useful. The fact that I was able to work as an assistant to data scientists was also based on what I learned from that book. I'm personally a fan of yours, so it's surprising to see you here
I wonder about his marketing channels. If it was primarily SEO, that has taken a huge hit especially for programming related searches since AI answers showed up at the top of the SERP.
Even before AI, plenty of people were self taught and didn’t get an “education.”
What I’ve found is that in the instances where I want to learn, ai teaches me now.
There are points I agree with and points I don't.
What I agree with is that things will come back around in 12 to 24 months.
What I don't agree with is that I also consider this to be AI.
In fact, when you use AI, the stratification of input is very clear. In the end, even in software engineering, the quality of what AI produces depends heavily on how you prompt it. And there's no way around it—AI will inevitably do better than most people. It's pointless to say to an encyclopedia, 'I know more than you.' For a human to beat AI, the only way is to dig deeper into the latest technologies, but that's something only scholars who are up to date with cutting-edge academic trends can do. Most ordinary people won't be able to win against it.
However, I think software engineering will continue to exist. The reason is the stratification of input. In the end, software skills might become something like a subset selection technique for prompting within a specific domain.