The article's main point is solid: Learning to code is hard mostly because coding is hard -- not just because there aren't enough learning opportunities and not just because we aren't welcoming enough. And learn-to-code merchants who say "Coding is easy!" are a bit untruthful in the infomercial kind of way. As those of us who do it professionally know, coding is often tear-your-hair-out difficult. Misery loves company! :-)

That said, I have two problems with the article.

#1 - I don't like the idea of qualifications. Sure, the lack of career-path guarantees sucks, but that anarchy also benefits us. If I can get my hands on a computer, I can learn to code on my own (with lots of hard work, yes), build what I dream of, change my life. I can sidestep red tape, bias, prejudice, and credentialism that might work against me elsewhere.

#2 - I dislike the vague word 'aptitude', which the author uses many times. The idea of 'aptitude' may help distinguish Mozart from Salieri, but not Salieri from his cousin Fred. What I mean is, at the level most of us operate at, mightn't factors like motivation, persistence, and health affect us more than 'aptitude'? If the article replaced the word 'aptitude' with 'motivation' I'd like it better.