I think it's even simpler: he took it personally. He spends much of his time writing code (whatever that means), so he thinks the article is calling him lazy and ignorant and arrogant. (That's not even true, by the way. The article says "lazy or ignorant or arrogant".)
Anyway, it triggered a classic defence mechanism: "what is calling me bad must be wrong". So he attacked the part of the article that offended him. In the process, he overshoot, and tried to discredit the whole article (by saying "complete bullshit").
(By the way, I only talk about the emotional process that likely triggered alexkearns' comment. That doesn't make it wrong. Nor right.)
Nice of you to write with such conviction and assuredness about my psychology and motives. It is really amazingly impressive how you have become such an expert in me from a single comment I made. I bet your friends are in awe of your ability to deconstruct people with such blithe ease.
But just to clarify a few points, I did not take the article as a personal attack on me or my programming philosophy.
I just happen to think that in its key points the articles was completely wrong. I know of no programmer - good or otherwise - who only produces 12 or so useful lines of code, or spends 80% of his time thinking about coding, rather than actually doing it.
Now, maybe my situation is not typical (but I bet it is not that atypical) but when someone claim's something to be true that in your experience is clearly not, it is one's duty to point that out.
Also, anyone who claims to know the truth about programming - I would certainly not claim I do - has to be dead certain they are right before putting these claims to publication, and one has every right to ridicule them if they get it wrong. Claiming to know the truth is not something that should be taken lightly.
I said "likely triggered the comment". I know it's speculative. But frankly, your tone was so aggressive that it was difficult not to think it was personal.
To the point, I think you and the author disagree on some definitions. Most likely "writing code" and "lines of code that make it to the final product". Plus the unspoken assumptions about the project (small or large, early or late…), but that has already been pointed out.
I also don't think the article suggests that "a great programmer is someone who connects together bits of code created by others, rather than writing his own code". What It does suggest is that great programmers don't write their own code when they shouldn't. That when they do anyway, it's probably out of laziness (screw the searching, I prefer coding), or arrogance (I can do better anyway), or ignorance (what? It has been done before?).
You are right to ridicule those who utter bullshit while claiming it's universal truths. But be careful not to leave holes in your rebuttal. That include angry tone and amplifying the opponent's words.
Sorry, but my options were limited: I felt I had to say unpleasant things, and I meant it in a good way. That's pretty much the definition of condescension.
So, it's either being condescending or not pointing out your mistakes at all. Do you really think you would have done otherwise? http://xkcd.com/386/
Allways, no. The last few days, yes. In the future, I hope not.
It feels like I am more and more able to see flaws in other's reasoning, but it's still harder to see them in mine. I also didn't figure out a way of saying "you're wrong" which doesn't hurt people yet. Finally, my current priority on the internet is seeking truth, not being nice.
So I guess that makes me an arrogant jerk. Well that's not cool, maybe I should shift my priorities a bit.
