> That's a very elitist take. Firstly they are solving their own very real problem of not knowing how to code. Second they could have a very specific problem they want to solve that can only be solved by code.
It's not elitist, it's realistic. You haven't actually mentioned a 'real' problem they are solving through code.
> Isn't that exactly the same problem they are solving for beginners?
Out of interest how do you qualify a 'real' problem?
It seems there are very few real problems in the world to solve if we are going to be stringent. Also solving non-real problems can lead to solving real problems (ad industry funding bleeding edge innovation is a good example of this).
> Out of interest how do you qualify a 'real' problem?
I assume it means a problem that needs solving, requires a computer to solve and is not just an exercise.
> Also solving non-real problems can lead to solving real problems
Yes, and there is nothing wrong or useless about solving problems that are not 'real', I was mostly just objecting to the usage of the term 'real problem'.
It's not elitist, it's realistic. You haven't actually mentioned a 'real' problem they are solving through code.
> Isn't that exactly the same problem they are solving for beginners?
Not according to the comment I was responding to.