This commentary is a prime example of the dangers of overgeneralization and a lack of critical thinking. The author argues that spreadsheets are a programming language, but fails to provide a clear definition of what constitutes a programming language. Instead, they rely on vague distinctions between spreadsheets and "traditional programming languages," which they define as having reusable code, a dynamic/automatic structure, and the ability to create sophisticated UI/UX designs.

The author also fails to acknowledge the limitations of spreadsheets as a programming tool. While they briefly mention that spreadsheets are less reusable than traditional code and have limited UI/UX capabilities, they downplay these issues and overemphasize the benefits of using spreadsheets. For example, they argue that spreadsheets are "easier" to use than traditional programming languages, but fail to acknowledge the complexity of learning the unique command line and R1 notation required to use spreadsheets effectively.

Furthermore, the author's argument that spreadsheets should be considered a programming language because they are used by a large number of people is flawed. Just because a tool is widely used does not mean it qualifies as a programming language. By this logic, we could argue that Microsoft Word is a programming language because millions of people use it to write code snippets.

Overall, this commentary lacks critical analysis and relies on unsupported assertions. While spreadsheets may have some programming-like features, they are not a programming language in the traditional sense. The author's argument that spreadsheets should be considered a programming language to increase the number of "programmers" is misguided and ignores the complexity of true programming languages.