Coding's demise is both inevitable (for certain types of coding) and improbable (for other types). The debate hinges on how you define coding. I wrote about th

Coding's demise is both inevitable (for certain types of coding) and improbable (for other types). The debate hinges on how you define coding. I wrote about this when Visual Studio LightSwitch promised "CODING OPTIONAL" (verbatim, from the installation splash screen): http://cvmountain.com/2011/10/programming-without-coding/ http://cvmountain.com/2011/10/programming-without-coding/ An excerpt from my 2011 post - The dream endures, but why? One reason could be a lack of trust. Successful software needs constant maintenance. As a software product becomes harder and more costly to maintain (as most do) the boss who doesn't quite trust his team will be tempted to look for alternatives that appear more trustworthy. This basic lack of trust becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as communication breaks down and the team and the boss begin to work in opposition. The boss is now a prime target for being sold the idea that software development can be very nearly automated. It’s not a logical process, it’s an emotional one. In other cases the boss simply lacks the necessary understanding. They might think that programming is actually an unskilled or semi-skilled profession, where the programmer simply memorises a quirky list of words and symbols and then types them in according to a specification written by someone in marketing. All this raises the question of what it means to program a computer.