“Code was never the hard part” is an insult to all programmers

Oh really? I thought the language needed to be ALGOL on a Burroughs B6700!

The author's primary misunderstanding in my opinion is that time consuming is being conflated with hard.

>If coding is easy, how come programmers were in high demand, and have demanded large salaries for years (even before ZIRP)?

There is more to those roles than just coding. In fact the more expensive "programmers" often do not code themselves.

>Why was there so much stress, overwork and burnout even before AI started churning out 5000-line PRs?

Something being time consuming is different from something being hard. There are simple factory jobs that also demand overworking.

>Why did companies seek 10x ninja rockstar coders and subject them to leetcode interviews—surely, a junior fresh out of college could churn out something if it's so easy?

Building software takes time and since velocity is important companies wanted people who could increase velocity.

>If coding is easy, why do we have doorstoppers like Clean Code and The Pragmatic Programmer? Is The Art of Computer Programming a light summer read? Is SICP a coffee-table book? Why do we have bootcamps or even whole college degrees dedicated to it?

So authors can make money? Programming is learned by a ton of kids on their own there is no need for boot camps or college degrees just for the benefit of being able to program.

If coding is easy, was Carmack just at the right place at the right time? Why do we consider Fabrice Bellard a genius?

The earlier you are to a field the easier it is to have your impact recorded. In markets with first movie advantage being earlier also helps a lot. A lot of people were able to program so what made them earlier than others was not just being able to program.

>If coding is easy, why are people angry at AI (or anyone else) copying their code? Why do they act like they've poured their sweat, soul, and copious amounts of time into something so trivial?

Again something being time consuming doesn't mean it was hard.

>If coding is easy, why do many now feel like their identity and professional purpose are being stripped away from them?

When you spend a big percentage of your life doing something it becomes part of your identity regardless of difficulty.

>If coding is easy, why is software so damn buggy?

Because making bug free software takes a lot of time and resources. Those resources have a higher return on investment elsewhere.

>If deciding what to build is the hard part, why do so many product managers seem clueless? Why aren't there rigorous 10-step interviews for them? Why aren't they getting paid more than the developers?

People are clueless because it is hard. Pay is not based off of difficulty.

>If deciding what to build is the hard part, why aren't market researchers, usability experts and—hell, customer success—considered rockstars in a software company? If “understanding the customer” is harder, why are business analysts looked down on as pencil pushers?

Because the company finds it cheaper to outsource? A ton of companies have their employees setting up and using telemetry to understand their customers so it's not a one dimensional thing.

>If implementation is easy and finding demand is harder, why are programmers upset when the salespeople promise a new feature to a customer to close the sale? They've found a genuine demand, something people will pay for!

Programming takes time and resources. These may have a higher return on investment elsewhere than this niche feature. It may make maintaining the entire product take more resources to support a niche feature.

>If coding is easy, why doesn't everyone just build ten variations of a thing and see which pans out?

Again building entire products takes a lot of resources. And 10x the cost of building every product is not going to be competitive in the market.

>Writing code is not hard.

Writing code has a minimum IQ requirement; a significant fraction of the population will essentially never be able to code by themselves. That labor supply limitation is what's kept programmer salaries relatively high.

I think you're confusing product and engineering. I get that programmers are smart so we just assume we can do every job, but it's a waste of your time and salary to talk extensively to customers and create product requirements. Let the PM's run the user research sessions, you can find more productive things to do.

However, where we agree, is that there is more to engineering than writing code. It's problem solving. Even if the product team, the c-suite, the board, the investors, et al, are all in on a product that they believe customers want, doesn't mean the real problem of bringing that idea to life at scale has been solved.