Neh. Computational problem can and are being solved with engineering solutions. Just because a crafty cousin can program something that almost work often enough to build a business on top of it doesn't mean that engineering programs is impossible.
"Programming is a tool to solve problems that you have in the domain of computers"
Again, this is wrong. Computers are tool with well defined set of operational constraints. You use such tool to model problem _outside_ of the domain of computers, and while it's true that programmer primary effort is in understanding the model and writing transformations that produce useful result, that process is a craft only if the practicioneer is an artisan.
> Computational problem can and are being solved with engineering solutions.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say here. What you trying to tell me that I am wrong about? Please tell me exactly what I wrote to which you disagree with.
> Again, this is wrong.
Tell me something where I can do programming (a program, not a programme) which isn't a form of computer? (Be that a digital or analogue computer, i.e. something that _computes_).
In the approach. Programs, whether the actual instruction set, the ux, the workspace they implement, what have you, are not essential to programming.
They're the output of model building, in so far that with model precise enough, you get tooling to create programs for you. Hence the program can't be the fundamental building block, the essence of computing.
We are limited in expressing our ideas in the language the computer speak when tooling doesn't help with higher abstractions, and this happens layers after layers after layers, from microcode all the way to bpel.
But the essence of using a tool is not using the tool, it's achieving the goal the tool was built for, using the tool is, at best, incidental to the tool not being automated enough.
> In the approach. Programs, whether the actual instruction set, the ux, the workspace they implement, what have you, are not essential to programming.
And I ask again, where do I ever make any of these claims? I've asked specifically to tell me exactly what I wrote to which you disagree with and you just reply with a strawman.
Regardless, I hope you have a lovely day and thank you for reading the article!
Again, it's the circular thinking that programming is to solve problems in the domain of computers. I even quoted you the passage and everything, I understand you being full defensive but the idea is quite specific.
"Programming is a tool to solve problems that you have in the domain of computers"
Again, this is wrong. Computers are tool with well defined set of operational constraints. You use such tool to model problem _outside_ of the domain of computers, and while it's true that programmer primary effort is in understanding the model and writing transformations that produce useful result, that process is a craft only if the practicioneer is an artisan.