Requiring a professional is a flaw, not a virtue. It's particularly problematic in our industry, where the end-user and most of the people involved in the production are not professional programmers.
> Requiring a professional is a flaw, not a virtue.
Your statement depends entirely on the context. I agree that requiring a professional to assemble my IKEA furniture would be a flaw. Requiring a professional to assemble my custom marble kitchen countertop totally makes sense and I'd hardly slam IKEA for not having such a package in Aisle 12.
Wow this is a really intriguing philosophical difference. I'm a big fan of specialization. I think it is the only way a complex society could possibly function. I'm glad that as an end-user of cars, airplanes, trains, medicine, MRIs, television, movies, wine, beer, liquor, the legal system, government services, etc. etc. etc. I don't need to be an expert in their design, development, and maintenance. It's great that because of its nature, software is more accessible than most things, but that doesn't mean it should all be made by non-professionals. There's plenty of room for both non-professional and professional tools, and neither approach is fundamentally flawed.
There's nothing wrong with professionals building tools for other professionals. PHP surely requires less activation energy for a tiny project or a new developer, but that doesn't mean Rails et al aren't providing useful options for full-timers.
I spent most of my life in PHP, and now spend most of it in Ruby/Rails and mobile development. Believe me, people can make utter messes no matter the language. This is not as strong as an argument as you think it is. I've seen my fair share of terribly coded Rails apps as well as PHP ones.
Requiring a professional is a flaw, not a virtue. It's particularly problematic in our industry, where the end-user and most of the people involved in the production are not professional programmers.