I feel like you're making a bit of a strawman of the state of modern development. I don't know anyone who is valued because they are a "git ninja". Being compet

I feel like you're making a bit of a strawman of the state of modern development. I don't know anyone who is valued because they are a "git ninja". Being competent with git is a prerequisite for doing any programming-at-scale in 2023 in my opinion, on par with knowing how to use the shell effectively. Most of the places I've worked value "global domain knowledge" over specific knowledge of slices. Junior engineers understand a small slice, seniors understand a subsystem component, architects understand the whole system. There are people who specialize, but they need to be a true specialist (i.e. understand their slice VERY deeply) for their value to be appreciated. I agree that low-code has its place, like in painting a house versus painting a masterpiece. If you need a generic, off-the-shelf solution, low-code is great. If you need a work of art, it's just the wrong tool for the job. The problem is that a lot of companies selling low-code applications try to advertise themselves as "able to create a masterpiece". A literal example of this is Dall-E and Midjourney trying to suggest that AI-generated art could belong in a museum. Maybe it could, in some one-off outstanding case. But for the vast majority of use cases that's just not true. Decision-makers seem to be suckers for this kind of advertising - and why not? If you promise me a Rolls-Royce for $20,000 and without any pesky mechanic-work, I'd WANT to believe it's true! But unless they have experience as a mechanic, or as someone who's purchased a lemon, or just someone with good intuition, they won't be able to resist the urge to say yes.