I started on a ZX81 then moved to a ZX Spectrum, and then to a +3. did some basic programming, played some games and was content with what I had. I was in effect vendor locked into Sinclair as it was the only system I had access to or knew how to use.
Then I got access to BBC Masters at school and I was even more content learning to program in Comal. It was the only system I had any programming teaching in until my Uni days.
Then I moved to an Amiga 500, Rexx, Amos, and others. All learned on the totally different environment of my Sinclair and BBC days and all was good for a while.
Shortly after my first PC (an old second-hand 386) which came with MS dos and windows 3.1. For about a year I used nothing but Dos, Windows, Turbo C and this matched what I had access to at Uni (not counting the VAX cluster).
I heard about this thing called Linux and I promptly repartitioned my flatmates 486DX and spent the next week downloading slackware one disk bundle at a time (I only owned 10 floppies.. I was a student and they were expensive!)
Today I switch between Windows, Linux, Android, Mac and others and program to varying extents in most, using several different languages as needed (cursing some, loving others).
Anyway my point is just because you start somewhere doesn't mean that's where you stay. If those backing code.org thing that the brightest students will stick to the products they were trained in they are deluded. Only the average and below students will never expand their knowledge beyond their training and I'm fine with that.
The good and best will still end up doing what they like, make their own choices, making a difference where they can and will have the intelligence to use the best tools for the job rather than the one their peers pressure them into using for whatever reason.