First of all, your argument comparing programmers to blacksmiths is already a counter-proof for what you are saying.
Sure, we don't have many blacksmiths, but let's look at the role of a blacksmith:
All they did was make things out of metal. They were what we now replaced with machines. The few innovative blacksmiths, who created new advances, were what are now engineers. Nothing has changed - only evolved. And what was once a role for a person is no longer.
Now, you are saying that there will be no need for programmers in the same sense of how we no longer need blacksmiths. But I ask you, do we have a programmer re-type every line of code for each and every piece of software that is sold? Because that would be the role of a 'blacksmith' programmer.
A programmer (or large group of) writes the first piece of software, which must usually be innovative, or better then what exists, in order to provide a use. Sure, there are countless pieces of code being re-written, or written poorly, but that is more for learning than for business, at least if they plan to survive. And when there are copies of software in the mainstream it is merely for economical competition, which will never change.
With the open source movement, or even with API's of old, there is no need to write every line of code over again, but rather to use them to make whatever new piece of software it is that you are planning to make. This involves making software that has never existed, which cannot be automated.
So I conclude that software programmers have never from the start been blacksmiths, or at least have not been for a very long time. What we provide is a constantly changing, evolving, and adapting use of logic in the form of code. No automation will ever replace that.
The number of programmers will not be decreasing to extremely low numbers either, since the more advanced software becomes the harder it is for individuals to create it. Large groups are required, for long periods of time (How long does it take to make a new game or operating system compared to 20 years ago).
You argument is not only wrong in practice, but wrong in theory. It's ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, your argument comparing programmers to blacksmiths is already a counter-proof for what you are saying.
Sure, we don't have many blacksmiths, but let's look at the role of a blacksmith:
All they did was make things out of metal. They were what we now replaced with machines. The few innovative blacksmiths, who created new advances, were what are now engineers. Nothing has changed - only evolved. And what was once a role for a person is no longer.
Now, you are saying that there will be no need for programmers in the same sense of how we no longer need blacksmiths. But I ask you, do we have a programmer re-type every line of code for each and every piece of software that is sold? Because that would be the role of a 'blacksmith' programmer.
A programmer (or large group of) writes the first piece of software, which must usually be innovative, or better then what exists, in order to provide a use. Sure, there are countless pieces of code being re-written, or written poorly, but that is more for learning than for business, at least if they plan to survive. And when there are copies of software in the mainstream it is merely for economical competition, which will never change.
With the open source movement, or even with API's of old, there is no need to write every line of code over again, but rather to use them to make whatever new piece of software it is that you are planning to make. This involves making software that has never existed, which cannot be automated.
So I conclude that software programmers have never from the start been blacksmiths, or at least have not been for a very long time. What we provide is a constantly changing, evolving, and adapting use of logic in the form of code. No automation will ever replace that.
The number of programmers will not be decreasing to extremely low numbers either, since the more advanced software becomes the harder it is for individuals to create it. Large groups are required, for long periods of time (How long does it take to make a new game or operating system compared to 20 years ago).
You argument is not only wrong in practice, but wrong in theory. It's ridiculous.