I don't think it's even a matter of definition. Most people just don't want to program computers. They want to just sit down and use them. If they really did want to write programs (in any way you define that term), they would: the tools are available. A few people explore macros, etc. provided in sofware such as Excel, but most people don't, and it's not because of the tools, it's because they just don't have the need to do it.
Those of us who became programmers in part because of discoverable built-in programming environments would argue that even if only .5% of users do any programming, the inclusion of those features is worthwhile because the other 99.5% of users will benefit from the code written by the few who were inspired to become programmers.
Design for extremes: if you make stuff for people who hate programming, that will make it easier for people who love it. You may end up coming up with ways to boost productivity (and fun) for people you never even thought about before:
https://books.google.com/books?id=idNhCcrANP0C&lpg=PA57&ots=...
Like the philosophy of the book, though the examples are really old school. I don't think the operative dimension is "love" vs. "hate" -- more like "can easily handle" vs. "find difficult".
But I don't see how to apply it to programmability -- and I don't think Apple has found any way. How could you make something programmable for people whose eyes slide over a URL without being able to see its parts? (Note: they maybe are willing but they can't, just like grandpa can't make his hands stop shaking and get the key into the lock. Naturally after enough frustration they come to "hate" whatever it is.)
