[loup-vaillant]

Do not say "this is just a tool", it never helps. Besides, computer happen to be different in kind: they can do anything you tell them to. This is as close to a genie in a bottle as you will ever get. It wouldn't feel right to deprive most people of this little genie, don't you think?

[wonderzombie]

I think you overestimate people's desire (let alone aptitude) to wrestle with the genie in order to get their wishes. I assure you that a great many people are only able to use computers by memorizing a series of steps. They have no mental model for how it works.

Given the options of "limitless but practically useless" versus "limited but quite useful practically," I'll opt for the second option. I'd rather have more people using computers than not. It's not fair to deprive people the power of even a relatively limited slice of computing just because they don't want to make a hobby out of it.

[loup-vaillant]

Once upon a time, most people couldn't read. No one thought it would be useful to them, including those who could read.

I think programming is the same. Just teach it in school, and watch. How many people wouldn't wrestle with the genie if their grades depended on it? Not much more than those who can't read, I think. (Yes, I'm aware that changing the school system isn't isn't a piece of cake. But its easier than requiring everyone to do non-mandatory work.)

Also, don't use the word "practically" when you actually mean "in the short term". Investing in the future can be worthwhile, despite hyperbolic discounting.

Finally, you forgot the option "limitless and immediately useful". Really, there no reason at all why they should be mutually exclusive. If they are in our world, that's only because other interests are at work. (Open platforms and Free Software tend to be harder to monetize.)