[zedshaw]

Part of the problem is you're trying to understand a classification that's fairly broad (learn to code) in terms of your narrow definition vs. their narrow definition. It's too broad of a term, so it's better to just say "learn to code" means the whole spectrum, then get specific about what they actually can do.

For example, these people are learning to code, but they're beginners so they won't be very capable. They'll struggle with most concepts, have to be reminded about syntax, and kind of think the computer is "magic". If they get through a few basic books then, yes, they "learned to code". If that's all they wanted to do, then they've done it and now they have a better understanding of computation and the things they work with all day.

After that, maybe some of them move on to build things, figure out the computer is not magic, learn a few more languages, pick up techniques, and generally continue the path of "learning to code". At that point you have a wider range of phases they'd go through on the way, but they are still doing what the phrase says. Maybe none of them will ever reach a professional level, some may master it and never do it as a day job.