That feels like a false equivalency. Painting a picture is no where near as complicated as spinning up an app. My 2yr old can take a paintbrush and paint a sun. She absolutely CANNOT type out "hello world".
When I was in school there was always a big hullabaloo about us using information from Wikipedia and Google to do projects and stuff
The older folk of the time would say "this is laziness and you should go to the library find the book to do the assignment"
This feels like that.
The barrier to entry has been lowered. Guys are going to build stuff. There's no stopping them. The only difference between people is no longer whether you can build the code, it is now, how creative can you be. How grand is your imagination. While we sit and debate that "ooooooh these guys shouldn't do it this way. They should go to the library and read the entire book on python and html so they learn to do it right" they're just going to continue building.
They aren't going to build stuff is the point. They'll have stuff built for them, never learn how it's made, never learn how it works, never learn how to tinker with it, optimise it, make it theirs. They haven't made anything, what is there to respect?
This is an artist, who believes the purpose of work is to be respected, arguing with an engineer, who believes the purpose of work is to produce something functional.
The treadmill of programming becoming gradually easier leading to lower skill programmers being able to do more has been going on for decades. It's a solved dilemma. If you think programming exists as a way to demonstrate your huge brain, you're welcome to code in assembly while everyone else makes what they want 1,500x faster than you and with fewer bugs.
18
u/Coelachantiform 1d ago edited 1d ago
The clear path is to learn the fuckin' skill.
If I want to create a painting, I'll pick up a brush and paint, and paint until I have achieved what I set out to do.
I don't give instructions to a painter, make them do it and then claim I made it.