This guy is just as glib as Graham if not more so. I just about closed the article when he started whining about how paintings get you laid. Please, stick to refuting the actual argument.
And I am incredulous to believe that this guy is really not going to see the analogy between the computer programmer and the visual artist. I am a hobbyist programmer who studies and works in graphic design. The parallels are definitely there. Software is a _design_. Writing software is a _design process_. Without getting too caught up in the argument between art and design, creativity is creativity is creativity. Forging connections between similar (or dissimilar) concepts, creating beauty in the world by solving problems. It's a lot like design. It's a lot like writing prose, too. I certainly wonder what the world would be like if more people were aware of this connection.
Overall it's unfortunate that "painting" gets thrown into the "art" bin which gets thrown into the "arbitrary" bin. The main case of contention behind the analogy is that if you start thinking of "programming" as "art," then you get stuck when you consider the statement "programming is functional" and the recursion "art has no function other than to function as art." But Graham is working in different terms altogether. In his analogy, the programming is the painting technique, where the program is the painting. The program is a manifestation of the programming; so too is the painting a manifestation of the paint. No art analysis worth its salt would start at the symbolism, biography, psychology or other such bullshit without first looking at the very brush strokes. We have centuries of artists making work that reminds us to be mindful of the medium.
Kant says that by virtue of man's imagination, "we are capable, in thought at least, of taking up what nature gives us and working it up into 'another nature.'" This is the task of both the artist and the programmer. Both are noble and both deserve pussy. "Maciej Cegłowski" can suck my fucking cock.