I can understand the sentiment. But even if we agree with the concept, it wouldn't actually change anything about the barrier to entry. I don't think there's anything you could do to artificially raise the barrier.
For example, one way to raise the barrier is to require everyone to have 4-year degrees - or even higher degrees. To be clear, I think this would be a horrible idea, but it's theoretically possible. However, it would be almost impossible to implement. Companies, with real-life programming problems to solve, and a shortage of talent to solve them, won't forgo talented candidates if they realize that good, potential employees can be had who do not possess a degree.
You can also raise such barriers with regulations (e.g., requiring every programmer to be "certified" or have some sort of special license). But such approaches would require broad societal support. Any such proposal would probably be dead on arrival.
Nevertheless, I do somewhat agree with the original idea. In theory, anyone with a keyboard can call themselves a "programmer". And if an employer is not careful, that "programmer" could find themselves working on critical systems that control medicine, finance, government, etc.
You can also raise such barriers with regulations (e.g., requiring every programmer to be "certified" or have some sort of special license). But such approaches would require broad societal support. Any such proposal would probably be dead on arrival.
If the barrier was raised (like Bob is proposing), I think this would be the pathway. After all if many states demand you need a licence to braid hair, then you can see how they could get onboard with something like licences for programmers. Though admittedly rather different sectors...
I personally don't support the idea. I could see unintended consequences for reducing social mobility (as it is more difficult to get into the career without resources) and innovation (as college drop outs find it harder to start the next big thing). I also suspect it might not help that much in critical systems - you would hope that organisations working on those systems would have their own vetting procedures in place as is (for reasons of reputational damage if nothing else).
I do think that reasonable people can disagree over this however. And there are some other potential advantages (apart from the obvious quality one) too - for instance you wonder how many hours are wasted by people re-creating the wheel when they don't know a solution already exists, a higher barrier might help this (as they would learn about already existing tech).
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I can understand the sentiment. But even if we agree with the concept, it wouldn't actually change anything about the barrier to entry. I don't think there's anything you could do to artificially raise the barrier.
For example, one way to raise the barrier is to require everyone to have 4-year degrees - or even higher degrees. To be clear, I think this would be a horrible idea, but it's theoretically possible. However, it would be almost impossible to implement. Companies, with real-life programming problems to solve, and a shortage of talent to solve them, won't forgo talented candidates if they realize that good, potential employees can be had who do not possess a degree.
You can also raise such barriers with regulations (e.g., requiring every programmer to be "certified" or have some sort of special license). But such approaches would require broad societal support. Any such proposal would probably be dead on arrival.
Nevertheless, I do somewhat agree with the original idea. In theory, anyone with a keyboard can call themselves a "programmer". And if an employer is not careful, that "programmer" could find themselves working on critical systems that control medicine, finance, government, etc.
If the barrier was raised (like Bob is proposing), I think this would be the pathway. After all if many states demand you need a licence to braid hair, then you can see how they could get onboard with something like licences for programmers. Though admittedly rather different sectors...
I personally don't support the idea. I could see unintended consequences for reducing social mobility (as it is more difficult to get into the career without resources) and innovation (as college drop outs find it harder to start the next big thing). I also suspect it might not help that much in critical systems - you would hope that organisations working on those systems would have their own vetting procedures in place as is (for reasons of reputational damage if nothing else).
I do think that reasonable people can disagree over this however. And there are some other potential advantages (apart from the obvious quality one) too - for instance you wonder how many hours are wasted by people re-creating the wheel when they don't know a solution already exists, a higher barrier might help this (as they would learn about already existing tech).