Second, doesn't mean much. It's almost as likely there's a bug in the code as in a proof. The only advantage is you can run some tets on it, but if it's wrong the tests may actually give you a false sense of security.
Lastly, if you prove P=NP you submit to FOCS or STOC. Let them review it.
Otherwise its just another Archimedes Plutonium.
My point is that a constructivist proof that P=NP along with working code (again I'm assuming it's implemented correctly, as it appears vetted by Romanov) is easier to prove incorrect as it's easier for someone who perhaps doesn't have the theoretical background to find pathological examples where it breaks down (and a much wider audience fits in this category, including most of HN).
I agree with your point about the false sense of security however--an inability to find such pathological cases is not sufficient to prove P=NP. In order to truly verify the claim a rigorous analysis of the proof will be necessary--but in this situation it's much easier to show what this guy is saying is false than in the Deolalikar case.