I've been programming long enough that I know the magic incantations to get started in a few languages. But I am still in Anon's shoes any time I learn a new language or library. As the article says, "Even for experts, programming is an exploratory process." So, I'd say everything in this article applies to programmers, too.
Categorizing people into programmers and non-programmers neglects the people who need programming but not at an expert level. Some interns and students won't excel as programmers, but they still can bring programming into what they do instead, especially if efforts like Light Table succeed.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this kind of pushback against reimagining programming — I've seen it as a response to some of Bret Victor's projects. Skepticism is great: Maybe the ideas behind Light Table are wrong or badly implemented. But we gain nothing from glib dismissals that seem to regard any attempt at improving or simplifying programming as beneath them.
I disagree with language like 'reimagining programming' in this context almost as much as I regret seeing Bret Victor's name being dragged in for no reason -- to the best of my knowledge, Bret Victor didn't design Light Table, and doesn't inform its progress.
There is progress to be made, and I'll be excited again when I see some.
I've seen the same "oh, this is only for beginners" reaction to some of Victor's ideas on making data visible and making libraries "discoverable" that seems needlessly dismissive. That's why I mentioned him. Also, Light Table's initial concept was inspired by his work[0].
I'm not always impressed by Light Table, but I appreciate the work the team has put into the problem and think they have good ideas.
The problem with a program-as-the-mental-model is that you will invariably hit a barrier (whether that be the halting problem or some simpler manifestation). I'm much more sympathetic to the Don't Kill Math[0] view. You need (abstract) analysis and no amount of IDE bling is going to eliminate that necessity.
Categorizing people into programmers and non-programmers neglects the people who need programming but not at an expert level. Some interns and students won't excel as programmers, but they still can bring programming into what they do instead, especially if efforts like Light Table succeed.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this kind of pushback against reimagining programming — I've seen it as a response to some of Bret Victor's projects. Skepticism is great: Maybe the ideas behind Light Table are wrong or badly implemented. But we gain nothing from glib dismissals that seem to regard any attempt at improving or simplifying programming as beneath them.