> In my opinion you are creating a false dichotomy between having learned and learning. Someone who has just started to walk/bike etc has still learned to walk/bike. They are by no means near entering Olympics for the next few years but they have made their own life very much simpler and more enjoyable. (Father of small children here.)

The fundamental difference here is that bikes are ridden in a way that's fundamentally unchanged for decades. Contrary to this "settled" field of knowledge, programming is constantly invalidating itself. Even if you achieve competency in a limited field (perhaps operating system design or web development), that field will almost certainly overturn itself within 5 years for any reasonably broad definition of field. Consider what modern linux looks like compared to the original version; a lot of new techniques have emerged to address requirements.

To enter that field, this new knowledge is not "optional." It's required. The goalposts for competency aren't just shifting; they've got a nuclear power supply and tank treads and they're out of control.

In this, it is not unlike being a doctor. Their knowledge base is similarly in constant flux (although not quite so violently as ours). A doctor who does not constantly improve and update their knowledge will be a substantially worse doctor than one who does. A perfect example of this is pre-scientific doctors like homeopaths, who basically do nothing with an almost frightening level of dedication and fervor.

> Comments like yours are discouraging at least one specific subset of people from doing the one thing that can possibly help them increase their skills

I did not direct this at some 16 year old kid or a non-programmer, nor did I put it in a venue where non-tech people read. Even if I did, citing final consequence is hardly a good argument. In any case, the industry does a pretty good job of discouraging people from joining as it is. When I was in college, there was a 60% dropout rate between lower and upper division classes.