The truth is - people think in text. Visual abstractions are only suitable for a tiny subset of things we're thinking about, and the rest is just too complex to be expressed in anything but a natural, complex language.
We always think in code. A plan for a day is a code (and nobody ever use graphical diagrams for it). A cooking recipe is a code (plain text, never a diagram). A legal document is a code (I wish some of them were diagrams, but a plain and unobfuscated English would have been even better). Pretty much any form of communication is code. A one-dimensional sequence of words.
Yes, the existing coding languages are crap, they are simply not abstract enough and not flexible enough. And this is what must be fixed. Representing the same broken abstractions, but this time in 2D diagrams, won't fix anything, or even make things worse. Been there already, with flow charts and all that.
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1293278/what-became-of-th...
Bubble is either too limited (meaning no, you cannot build the next Facebook with it) or simply a visual skin over the fundamental problem that is software development. If Bubble is powerful enough, then not anyone will be able to use it to build complex systems, no matter how fancy the colorful UI you slap over it.
It's as if the author of the article thought the complexity of Facebook lies in choosing which color to use for the "like" button...