I see no benefit in being pedantic. Obviously writing code that performs simple API interactions is "programming". The definition of programming is extremely broad.

It is rather clear to me that yazzku is saying that the programming required to pull of what the R1 does falls well below what Rabbit promised their customers. That this is such a bullshit design that we can infer that the entire product is a scam, because if they were serious it wouldn't be so obvious that no work into actually making a useful product.

You can build perfectly fine products without programming anything at all. The problem isn't the lack/scale/type/complexity of programming. The problem is that the product is bad, and this is not a pedantic point at all.

Please don't cheapen professional expertise in this way. The product is bad, yes, but why? Because the programming is bad, and the programmers are negligent.

> Anybody can string a couple of API calls together and write an "app". That is not programming

Yes it is. Simple as.

Please don't gatekeep something as casual as writing code. Good lord.

Casually writing code and writing code that securely handles customer data and maintains availability for something you're selling are two different things.

Imo it's programming, but not engineering.

And it plays, in large part, why some engineers get upset when programmers call themselves engineers without the skill, discipline, and responsibility to back it up.

To me it has nothing to do with size or complexity. You can have a 20-line well-thought-out imperative Python script that is well-engineered. And you can have a 200,000 line Java app that leaks PII all over the place, loses user data twice a week, and is impossible to debug because it's a giant spaghetti rats nest.