People would rather learn [high-level abstraction] than to learn [low-level abstraction]. But guess what..[high-level abstraction] IS [a kind of abstraction].

This is true for all of us - it's just that the level of abstraction each of us is comfortable with is different.

Not sure why people don't understand the value of raising the level of abstraction for more people to participate in software creation. It seems like an obviously valuable and worthwhile objective, even if it does look different to the way I build software.

Because they're pretending that this next [high-level abstraction] will be replaced by another style of [high-level abstraction] as if [high-level abstraction] is nothing but a scaffold to let us ascend to the true productive glory of [high-level abstraction]. It ignores the fact that it's not unheard of for platforms which started out no-code later REGRESS and introduce coding features such as APIs because as it turns out, no-code is intrinsically limited in a lot of very significant ways.

When I use a "no-code" product it's usually not more than a few months before I start using it's API and adding small bits of code here and there to do things not natively supported by the product. You would have to have a puritanical fervor and a lack of sense to want to eliminate all semblance of code from a product made out of code.

It's almost as if after seeing you could add images to Microsoft word documents you saw an article coming out about how Written English was going to be replaced by Hieroglyphics and soon we could communicate with nothing but Emoji and talking about how the next generation won't be literate. The sentiment in this thread is mostly a reaction to irritating and implausible clickbait.

> It's almost as if after seeing you could add images to Microsoft word documents you saw an article coming out about how Written English was going to be replaced by Hieroglyphics and soon we could communicate with nothing but Emoji and talking about how the next generation won't be literate.

a standard newspaper article then ? https://cheezburger.com/6860549/14-hysterical-headlines-that...

actually I'm pretty sure that there were a ton of articles in the vein of what you're saying circa 2000 when emojis rised in popularity

Well put especially the last bit.

Perhaps because many believe that at minimum existing solutions don't successfully present a useful abstraction whereas people have been over promising for decades.

At maximum that a gui represents a bad abstraction that can't be used by non coders effectively to produce code save for when actual code exists that sufficiently specifies the program. For example a gui builder can help you build your web based store but is insufficient to build the tool that builds the store.