coding is a synonym for programming. No need to distinguish the two. If you can program you can code, if you can code you can program. Talking about software design or architecture is something different.

> If you can program you can code, if you can code you can program.

If you consider people who use scratch (http://scratch.mit.edu/) as coders, then I would agree with you.

But, to me, it doesn't look like they are coding. It looks like programming using something other than coding.

Why do you think that it's important to distinguish between the two? The fact that it sometimes possible to program a computer without coding does not relay the "importance" of distinguishing, since it's not done on a regular basis and usually is called "configuring", or "defining workflow" but not "programming".

> Why do you think that it's important to distinguish between the two?

It is important because programming doesn't always involve coding.

It is important because language can limit or expand our thinking and definitions play a role in that.

I think it is important to strive for moving away from coding as the primary means of programming a computer so we can democratize software development. So, we should not redefine the definition of programming to be "coding a computer".

> since it's not done on a regular basis

I don't think this is a very good litmus test.

> usually is called "configuring", or "defining workflow" but not "programming"

We used to say "program a VCR".

The word is even defined as "the action or process of writing computer programs." There is no mention of coding as being a required aspect of the programming process.