Here's how I see this: programmers and coders are thoroughly ambiguous terms that mean different things to different people. If you think they equate to engineer, then it sounds like a good thing. If you think they equate to mechanic, then maybe not so much. I'm not sure half the world becoming mechanics necessarily has much benefit. Half the world as engineers, maybe so.

My take on the post is that Bret is viewing code.org, or at least the page he criticizes, as trying to make mechanics, when they should be trying to make engineers. Seen in that light, the quotes do take on sort of a different tone.

I think I would disagree on this point. Programmers and mechanics both share a similar ability: the knowledge to make machines amplify our work output. The more folks with these force multiplier skills, the higher the productivity.

Now, I agree that in principle, Engineers design and build those type of systems. However, I think as morr people are educated in those domains (programming or mechanical aptitudes), you will begin to find more self-taught engineers with the skills to bring ideas to life.

I think you're right and wrong: Programmers can be similar to mechanics, but that can alternatively be similar to engineers. It's all semantics, but the people taking part in the whole "learn to code" thing are most likely going to be the mechanics of programming: they can, if given oversight and clear instructions, build lots of things.

On the other side, there are those who are going to be doing the oversight and giving the clear instructions, who can build something from vague requirements with minimal fuss. There are also lots of people in between, but everything is easier when you put it in absolute terms.