From my point of view I can understand how some people might think you need to be code-capable to be proficient in Pro.
With everything possible in Arcade and having Jupyter Notebooks as a built-in feature, if you can 'code' you will be better off.
In some cases it is easier to script a task rather than trying to accommodate Pro's laggy UI, dynamic ribbon that seems to always open the wrong tab, or trying to find 'that tool' that you used a while ago.
For some tasks, ArcMap tools (e.g. Catalog) are just faster & easier and I will continue to use it while it can run in my network; saying that, I also use QGIS or write a GDAL script or two as needed. Did you have XTools for ArcMap? Get it for Pro.
Pick the right tool for a task; and right can mean most efficient in mouse clicks, mouse moves, time spent to load the application, cleaning the ProPoo (random empty folders, etc it creates) and so on.
A good example is Pro not currently able to use DDP/Map Series in a map window to help with editing/review, or running GP tasks in a batch - the Pro batch process is both better and much worse than ArcMap, depending on the task.
Just because it's new (going on 10y...) doesn't mean its always better.
There is nothing wrong with using ArcMap if you have paid for a permanent license and you use it to be more efficient/productive than you would be in Pro. If you use ArcMap with ArcGIS Online you need to step away from the computer slowly and have a cup of tea.
3.3.1, bar its unstable nature compared to other recent versions, seems to be the best of the bunch so far.
EDITS:
Some language fixes.
Comments: I am very critical of Pro. Why? I use it to generate my income and knowing how great many of the Esri staff are, it should just be better.
Based on my workflows and client-base there just seems to be so much more time spent figuring out a workaround for a Pro shortcoming that I cannot in good conscience bill a client for.
Like what? You have a large number of completed maps and the client needs a new layer added to some of them. Open the project, update the document control number, save a new copy of the project, add the layer, add some transparency to another, add the new one to the legend. Based on the existing legend content there is a large probability that I will have to spend a few minutes wrangling with the various font and patch sizes to get it to match all the other maps because there is no full manual mode for legends. Who pays for that time? This is not an issue in ArcMap unless you've got some very specific settings in place.
Save the project and export the Layout to pdf. Fantastic - Pro now creates visible lines in pdfs (not Adobe's fault entirely). I know the client doesn't use Adobe Reader so the viewing workaround doesn't work for them.
I can fix this by using group layer transparency or a vector layer on top that fakes a transparency but again - who pays for that time? ArcMap pdfs are fine. For my maps the 'better' way Pro can do things in pdfs don't matter, if my clients don't want to see lines in the pdf when they view it in Edge, Sumatra, Kofax, Bluebeam. etc.
For new users this is their "it's always been like that". For experienced people that have used many applications from multiple industries (not just GIS) - no matter how much Kool-Aid is put in marketing material, Pro has issues; that can be resolved if Esri put their focus on it. If it was great it wouldn't take near 10 years to get all users onboard.
