[pvg]

The opposite view of what? Because the author discusses your point directly and at length -

"[...] this is not to say that many people can't get immersed in systems that require such understanding. They do in many parts of their lives. For example, lawyers and tax accountants routinely work with such complexity in their contracts and planning. Doctors work with an untold number of variables. Someone planning a big party has to work out the food, matching paper goods, favors, invitation list, entertainment, etc. Yet, all of these people rarely program computers in addition. It's just that people who aren't professional or hobbyist programmers usually don't want to get so immersed in something that is infrequently done and not part of the rest of their lives. The question really isn't "Why Johnny can't program" but rather "Why Johnny won't or doesn't choose to program"."

[orionblastar]

It is having an interest in learning how to program. Not everyone has it. That is why there isn't much diversity in people hired for programming jobs, lack of interest in programming by women and minorities. I'm sure women and minorities can program and learn how to do it, just that a lot lack the interest and do something else instead.

There are exceptions like people in India that get a free college education and take up programming to get a good paying job in the West somewhere.

[pvg]

Not sure I understand how that's related to the article either, to be honest.

[Retric]

I think your confusing things that look like programming problems to you, with things people actually use programming to solve. Millions of people have actually programmed a DVR. Programmers on the other hand tend to look at lot's of problems and thing "let's use code!" even if it's not actually a good idea.

Whiteboards are often a better solution than computer systems when it comes to patent care, because they simply have fewer ways to fail.

[pvg]

That was a quote from the article, not something I'm confusing so I still don't quite understand your point.

[Retric]

"It's just that people who aren't professional or hobbyist programmers usually don't want to get so immersed in something that is infrequently done and not part of the rest of their lives."

His view, if a wedding planner (someone that did this regularly) was a programmer they would use it to solve problem X. My view Problem X is generally not a programming problem. In comparison problem Y ex:(programming a DVR) is a programming problem and millions of people used programming to solve it.

[pvg]

That's not how interpret what he's saying at all - he's saying that there are activities/professions that require detailed modeling and knowledge of complex rules and systems but people who engage in them don't usually take up programming for any reason, not 'they don't take up programming for the professional needs'. And what you're contrasting as a 'programming problem' mostly doesn't fit his definition of programming, either.

[Retric]

He clearly has a flexable definition of programming: "There are some hybrid forms. ... (Trellix's TWE web site authoring system is built this way.)" And DVR's seem to meet this definition of specification through menus style programming especially when you get into GC.

Yet, I don't see any way a weadding planner can save time and really automate things at a high level. Use an online calendar, manage invitations through an electronic address book etc sure. Get a computer to do seating arrangements, yea not worth the effort.

http://www.toptableplanner.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/...

[Terr_]

> Someone planning a big party has to work out the food, matching paper goods, favors, invitation list, entertainment, etc.

So? Many people solve specific crosswords, but that doesn't mean they can write a generic crossword-solver. The underlying skills are very different.