>If you go back in time and imagine yourself in 1950, would you have said that about computers in general?

I'm not the parent, but personally, no, I don't believe so.

I always appreciate the "it's like past changes" thought when things change, but in my opinion, this one simply isn't. It's notably different both quantitatively and, critically, qualitatively, than all previous increments in computers/software. This is much more lateral than punch cards -> assembly -> compilers -> frameworks.

Also, regardless of that thought, the "it's like past changes" argument relies on a false implication: That all changes that survive are "good" in the broad sense. Many changes often persist simply because they are inevitable - not because they are good. They have both good and bad parts, and it's subjective as to which side it leans towards.