That seems like a rather absolutist statement. I work with PS CC and its great features all day at work but I guess I still remember the fantastic work that was done before those features existed.

I have colleagues who still edit their photos using the apparently-despised techniques you mentioned, and despite "doing it wrong" they manage to make a great living off their photography work.

When I was teaching PS at my local college, I allowed my students to try out alternative software packages for extra credit. Some of my brightest students walked away from those classes happy that they could do everything they needed to do with GIMP, even though they knew all about non-destructive editing.

I guess my point is that it's hard to argue against using non-destructive editing if it's available and you understand it. Can you create great things without it? Of course.

Bringing the analogy back to programming: some people create useful/beautiful apps without using any form of revision control, and that's fine for them. But if you know how to use revision control and have access to it, then is there really any strong reason not to use it, especially if you're working professionally? It helps increase productivity far more than not using it. For that reason, I'd definitely tell other developers that if they aren't using revision control for professional work, they're doing it wrong.

If you were to pick two professional photographers or retouchers at random - one who uses non-destructive editing and the other who doesn't, I'd be willing to bet the one who uses it (all else being equal) produces more consistent, high quality results and with greater efficiency than the one who doesn't.