> there is no chance everyone could be a programmer
There is no chance, even if by "everyone" you just meant "a majority". It's intellectually challenging, just for one.
There is no chance, even if by "everyone" you just meant "a majority". It's intellectually challenging, just for one.
You're the one arguing on the basis of value. I don't. Let me just ask you this; do you think that being a good enough finance trader requires a high IQ? I'm pretty sure of it, and I'm also of the opinion that what they're applying their smarts to is a net negative for society as a whole.
Another question, have you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate?
That's not, unless you stretch the meaning of the word far into meaningless. But if you insist on doing so, then yes, most people should be able to "compose digital tools" for a small enough number of digital tools and a wide enough meaning of "compose." Although, on second thought, it appears so many people had issues with "programming a VCR" back in the day, and that wasn't anywhere close to my meaning of "programming."
So let me rephrase it, "there is no chance everyone or even majority could become a minimally proficient user of a minimally useful programming language for novel tasks beyond a sequential list of actions."
Do you seriously expect 99% of the population to be able to understand something as simple as the demonstration of Euclid's theorem? And yet any programming is more complicated than that, and more analogous.