I wonder if it is not actually the opposite.

Modern phylosophy deals with concepts, their critique and production. By "concept" I mean abstract but well identified ideas used as fundamental building blocks for thoughts and principles. By "modern" I mean what is left of classic phylosophy after it has been separated of everything that was taken away by other fields of study like physics, psychology, etc. For exemple "The world is made of atom" was a philosophic statement at the time of Democritus but is now a fact. What is left is the endeavour of making sure what people mean when they use a word.

It's a point made by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus that the task of studying reality has been taken over, much more efficiently, by natural sciences, but there remains one field of study that is not about reality itself but the language used to describe reality. As such it is transversal to all disciplines and parallel to none of them.

Simply put, it consists in taking every single word of a sentence like "this apple is red" and ask "what do you mean by 'apple', what do you mean by 'red'" and so on. This might sound like nitpicking but there is actually much more embedded in the word "red" than meet the eye. How do we learn what "red" means? How do we know what it means to other people? Could we explain it in a document so precisely that after our death when nobody can adress any question about this particular document people who will read it can say "this is red indeed", without misunderstanding?

With something so simple as "red" it can sound futile (although I really think it is not), but we can try it with words we use daily like "democracy", "electricity", "appliance", "performance" and see that there is actually a lot embedded in those words that is never maid clear. We just don't notice it as long as communication happens "good enough", just like we don't really care if its acceleration or velocity that is constant in gravity as long as our experience of it is limited to learning to walk. And the practical implications of being able to identify the complexity, the multitude of ideas and affects behind a word like "democracy" becomes obvious as soon as we take the time to listen to a political speech. Politicians and used car salespeople are adepts at the art of using vaguely defined yet usual words that each listener can identify in the way they want and be happy with it for reasons opposed to the person next to them.

This practice is by the way not limited to modern philosophy. For example Plato's Hippias Major features a lengthy discussion about the nature of Beauty. Hippias starts very confident that he knows what he means by the word "beautiful", but Socrates, by questioning him about the logical implications of his proposed definition, quickly shows him that he doesn't know what this word means, although he uses it everyday. Of course Plato being platonist (duh...) he thought there was One True Definition of Beauty, and many disagree with him about it, but the core idea of showing people they don't know the meaning of the words they use and therefore are prone to nonsense remains very relevant.

So, why is philosophy making things so complicated? Because this endeavour of analysing words we take for granted requires long definitions. Take a sentence like "people should try to maximize the utility of every action" and replace each word like "people", "should", "utility", "action" by a precise and well thought out definition, repeat the process a few times and you will end up with a complete, lengthy essay about morals riddled with jargon like philosophers are infamous for.

To continue your programming metaphor, philosophy would be the endeavour of taking a simple python program and ask for every keyword, every function "wait, what do you mean by 'with', 'for', 'enumerate', 'depth_first_traversal'... ?" replacing each of them with what it actually does. The reason we actually don't do this in computer science is because all of those routines are built bottom up, precisely defined, documented and never change. But those are ideal conditions we can't expect when using everyday language.