It's funny that if you agree that many programming languages suffer from a paradoxical "shield of complexity" like the author describes, than the obvious soluti

It's funny that if you agree that many programming languages suffer from a paradoxical "shield of complexity" like the author describes, than the obvious solution is better technology like natural language parsers, etc. (Ways to translate more common human expression into machine-specific coding). However, the technology to do that would be an order of magnitude more complex than what exists today, so the framework/base/foundation of technology needed to make day-to-day programming more accessible to everyone would also suffer from it's own perpetual "shield of complexity". Whether you see the irony in that or not, is besides the point. Basically, arguments about programming being too complex are null and void if the technology needed to solve it would always be increasingly more complex. Unfortunately, I think that's how history advances in general. At the time the printing press was invented, most people were unable to read and write. Reading and writing was a TECHNOLOGY accessible only to elites. Over time, that technology and associated skills become accessible to almost everyone, but based on even more advanced technology that enabled the masses to learn. The same might come to pass in regards to programming skills, where everyone in the future will be able to program, but a smaller crowd will be working on even more advanced stuff to allow us to all learn those skills, ad infinitum.