So... There are a bunch of loosely connected elements here. The primary one, IMO, is the "anyone can be a dev" ethos. A lot of this ethos is historical. Progr

So... There are a bunch of loosely connected elements here. The primary one, IMO, is the "anyone can be a dev" ethos. A lot of this ethos is historical. Programming does not have long decades or centuries of history, like civil engineering, medicine or whatnot. In fact, programming was (relatively) recently something that users were expected to do. "Buy computer, program it." was the model into the 90s. Related is the fact that programming moves fast. Building techniques change, but much slower than software. Most civil architects work all their life building similar constructions with similar materials. That lends to a lot more formalism. Idk... I'll grant that there are a lot of downsides to openness. There are upsides too though. On balance, I feel that software's rare status as a "free profession" in anachronistic terms, is good. Also, I think that expansionary economics plays a role. There's more software work every day. Software developers aren't under the same economic pressure as other professions. Lawyers would be hurt financially if accreditations and qualifications were taken out of law. It's hard to know what a world with licence to code looks like. Maybe we have a lot less software, but it's more secure. Maybe we know a lot less about the software we have. Finally, I consider the importance of OSS, FOSS and volunteer made software a strength, not a weakness. That's a whole other thread though.