I mean, gvb's alternate analogy is also a good one. Yes, writing software is like configuring the assembly line, and yes both of those things are expensive work for highly-trained professionals. And yes the interesting difference is that 99.999% of the cost of making software is this design, whereas in car manufacture it's maybe 5% or 20% or something (and the actual stamping is the rest). This is a good analogy, sure! It's also hopefully old news for basically all of us. Isn't it?

But sologoub's analogy is a different one, and it's also a good analogy, and in my experience a less-overused one. And insofar as it's more-novel (to me), it's more instructive, and thus "correcting" it with an overused analogy suggests lack of understanding.

Sologoub's point, to attempt to restate and simplify, is this: the value and scarcity of modern engineering is comparable to the value and scarcity of pre-industrial artisans. Industrial artisans because less valuable when industrialization commoditized their work. And sologoub proposes that this could one day happen to software development (and other engineering), and if/when it does, (software) engineering will cease to be lucrative. I think it's an interesting model; I have no idea if it will be possible to industrialize software development, short of god-AI taking over all human labour.

Artisans always were tied into the production as well as the design. Mass writing ability however is more what you're seeing like the internet did to journalism. I anticipate something like THAT happening, not something related to artisans really.