The replies to your comment took a turn to whether we will need programmers or we won't need programmers in the future, let me take it in a different direction.

I think what he's explaining is that for most (maybe all? no empirical evidence to back this up) programming and computer software in general is a means to solving a problem.

Operating Systems solve the problem of needing a foundation in which to develop higher-level tools that enable computing. Whether the higher-level problems are complex astrophysics calculations or hailing a ride, as you travel down the stack, each piece of software is solving some problem domain.

Point of this sentence is to say, as you move forward in your career, you (usually?) develop knowledge of an industry, a customer base, a constituency or some other problem domain in which you combine your skill in engineering with your knowledge of the domain.

If you don't do this, and you say "I can do anything but I have no special knowledge of any problem" then it's more likely a person with both problem-specific knowledge and engineering knowledge will be given the job.

However, there are so many problem domains in the world of computing, it's very easy to pick one or two that interest you personally.

Programming is an analytic process, gathering requirements, understanding or creating a process, and translating that into the language that computers understand. Only the last bit is likely to be made simpler for non-programmers in the near future. So "programming" is a skill on its own, rather like "management".

Can you explain more what inspired you in this sentence or are you still thinking it's bizarre? And if you do still think it's bizarre why would that convince you to donate?

not OP, but one thing we as developers should recognize is that programming itself is likely to become merely a skill like operating a spreadsheet or typing. In much the same way, writing was once a skill available (or at least, practiced) by a very small subset of people, and the spread of literacy made the job of "scribe" largely irrelevant over time. Children today are learning how to program—perhaps not yet in the numbers we might have imagined, but a growing number. As they grow up, they are not going to pursue jobs as "programmers" or "developers", any more than I would pursue a job in a typing pool. They will merely incorporate this skill into whatever role they end up in.

Those best suited to compete in that scenario are going to have deep experience in some area where programming is an applied skill, not an end unto itself.

While a agree to some extent and have even explored the idea of how my programming skills could be augmented with other non-programming jobs I still feel that for the foreseeable future we will have programmers.

I see lots of jobs being done by non-programmers that would be done much much better had that person been a programmer. The future will undoubtedly be full of people in traditionally non-programming jobs with programming skills. But we should not trivialize the systems that allow this to happen. While most programmers work very high in the stack there are many very deep layers that sit below that will require a army of programmers to keep going and keep innovating so more productivity can be had at the higher layers.

As an example I feel people often trivialize one or two liners programs, or short examples that seem to do so much for such a few terms. But even those simple examples are backed by sometimes 10 of thousands of lines of codes. A wave of a hand, and a bark of spoken command to a computer will -- at least with today's software and hardware -- never end up producing something new and innovated that will be widely used.

To get where you are suggesting many things have to change. And it's not all software. If you even take a cursory glance at what it takes today to bootstrap a operating system -- you would then see how complicated things get. For the future I feel you are envisioning the hardware will have to be worked along with software to make things much much much more modular than they are. More standardised terms to describe things and more finite building blocks will need to be made. In fact the closest thing I could get your future vision with today's technology is FPGAs and it is no trivial task to do anything useful with a hardware described language.

tl;dr We have not solved computers or software, therefor; a army of programmers will be required for the foreseeable future.

I don't think that day is as far off as you seem to. Yes, there are some kinds of programming which require deep expertise in programming itself, but these jobs are far from the majority.

If you've ever read Vinge's _Deepness in the Sky_, recall that the protagonists occupation for a period of time was that of a code archeologist, attempting to collect, categorize, and understand code that was centuries (or was it millenia?) old... We may be a ways off from that, but I don't think its far from the truth of the future.

Well, typing is more of a motorical skill than programming. Almost everyone can learn to drive a car (manual gearbox) but the same could not be said for programming where problem solving, logic and intelligence is a must.

But with that being said, people from other professions could still learn how to program and do it well.

Maybe you think of a programmer as person that is just typing in the program designed by someone else, a developer, in a specific language with a specific syntax?

I think a programmer is someone who writes programs, regardless of the quality of the code. Substitute spreadsheets for typing if you think its more appropriate. Not everyone with domain expertise knows how to use a spreadsheet, and not everyone who uses spreadsheets uses them as well as someone that, for example, writes software for a living (and not all of the latter use it as well as someone who only uses spreadsheets!) But good luck finding someone who's only job is getting hired to code up a spreadsheet. The vast majority of uses are to allow someone with just enough skill to create something that performs a job function in an automated way, which in turn makes another job that much easier. Once upon a time, it would have been a persons job to perform the calculations and updates that a spreadsheet makes trivial.

It would be foolish to think that the same will never happen to the vast majority of our jobs.

I see that it could be true for many desktop and mobile phone applications but who should develop the operating systems, embedded applications and backends? It is a full time job just to learn all the programming languages, libraries, frameworks, standards, protocols and other related things.

Well, the "programmers" in operating system and embedded domains are usually electrical engineers who learned how to write code, just enough to apply their domain knowledge. A programmer in the usual sense, that is someone graduated from pure software school, will have a hard time competing with those people.

We still have a lot of different kinds of scribes.

The number of people who can put together effective, performant and reasonably correct systems is not that large.

Interesting...... What will they do in the future? Because by then bank jobs would be gone, basic health care would be performed by robots, and even writing by machines. Hell, everyone would be at home .

I was misunderstood. What I find bizarre is my felling to want to give money for the reason that that phrase resonated with me a lot. The sentence he wrote is not bizarre at all. It is a gem.

Thank you. I will make a donation button once the book is relatively "stable".

About the sentence, sadly, but it is the trend.

I am sorry. English is not my mother tongue so it came off wrong. I didnt think the sentence was bizarre. It just resonated with me so much , maybe because currently I am involved as a programmer in a project where if I had more domain knowledge, my life would be so much better and I would be able to take initiatives a lot more. And I just got a feeling of a need to support your work. I called it bizarre, because at the moment it seemed too sudden. Looking forward to the complete text. Nice work :)

I can see your point, but the section created a nice "atmosphere" for me and it was not too long. I dont know how to express it clearly.