And I think that makes all the difference. I tend to believe very strongly in hands on experience, think that seeing things happen yourself & getting to play is by far the best way to learn, just incredibly surpassing.
There's a theory of education called Constructivism[1] that is broadly similar. Adherents include folks like Seymore Papert[2], creator of Logo, employee at One Laptop Per Child (which I think is the most interesting & innovative software environment we've ever created, vastly under-appreciated). Projects like Logo are supposed to create that hands on feedback, to make programming not just writing scripts & having programs run, but ways to see the code really execute, to create more interactive modes.
With software eating the world, it is so so so important to me not just to create knowledge, to tell tales of what software is, but to let people have the experience themselves. To create playgrounds to meddle, to mess around. I wish so much that applications could actually show & explain what they are doing, what's inside of them, could reveal their workings, but we're so far away from that Enlightened world, we've fallen into such deep shadows imo.
(Side note, I see things very differently, but I also am disappointed folks would downvote your perspective like this. As for the lack of knowledge/experience, I'd say that most engineers don't have familiarity because there's not a lot of opportunities to set up & learn systems work; most coders spend their time coding, not setting up bits of infrastructure to run code on. You yourself also say "writing the code is the easiest part", which underscores just how complex/inter-related/particular all the systems/infrastructure stuff is, how probable it is engineers might not feel fully competent or brave enough to engage.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_...
