[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/...