The problem is that what Dijkstra means by "competent programmer" is not what Jeff means. It's not just that they are talking about different levels of competence – they aren't even talking about the same discipline.
Dijkstra may have meant something like "doing meaningful work in computer science" or "solving algorithmic challenges". Jeff Atwood seems to mean something like "gluing libraries together to accomplish a business objective".
At the beginning of Jeff's post, it almost sounds like he has something interesting to say about the Dijkstra quote, but that's just because he confusingly uses the same word to mean something almost completely unrelated. As he says "the vast bulk of code that I've seen consists mostly of the 'balancing your checkbook' sort of math." I don't think that's quite what Dijkstra had in mind. Likewise, I suspect finding new algorithmic approaches to tough computational problems is not high among Atwood's interests.
The problem is that what Dijkstra means by "competent programmer" is not what Jeff means. It's not just that they are talking about different levels of competence – they aren't even talking about the same discipline.
Dijkstra may have meant something like "doing meaningful work in computer science" or "solving algorithmic challenges". Jeff Atwood seems to mean something like "gluing libraries together to accomplish a business objective".
At the beginning of Jeff's post, it almost sounds like he has something interesting to say about the Dijkstra quote, but that's just because he confusingly uses the same word to mean something almost completely unrelated. As he says "the vast bulk of code that I've seen consists mostly of the 'balancing your checkbook' sort of math." I don't think that's quite what Dijkstra had in mind. Likewise, I suspect finding new algorithmic approaches to tough computational problems is not high among Atwood's interests.