[ mona / prog / sol ]
Code is just the result of a programmer programming; its like calling a Chef who makes food a "fooder".
It's not like that at all. Let's examine that analogy:
Food is just the result of a fooder fooding
Can you see what's wrong with that phrase?
``Food'' is never a verb.
But with code:
Code is just the result of a coder coding. Perfectly grammatical and meaningful.
``Code,'' on the other hand, is---can be---a verb.
(There remains the point about whether being the result of coding---programming, as your preference may have it---is all that code is, but we'll not get into that involved topic.)
coding implicitly has a lower value than programming, because the former just produces code, while the latter reasons about programms.
Not so! To programme is to make a programme---be it encoded or in a sloppy form---but not necessarily to understand or reasons through it. Surely a good programmer would---rather, should---but experience suggests otherwise. On the other hand, one might code something other than a programme---a data structure, for instance. But there is a ``higher intellectual level'' associated with programming relative to coding---coding need only make it rigorous, making a good programme is a creative task---perhaps just composing extant programmes, but which? how?
Often something is to be programmed, and coded. One having both abilities may be more effective.