There's a clear implication that there are other things that should be learned using some contrasting mechanism. And furthermore, the author, like many others, misses completely that school isn't meant to be OTJ training. If it were, more than half of your units wouldn't be 17th century female philosophers from Rwanda. To the extent that you directly study programming in school, it is almost all hands-on.
I am in agreement with the general thrust that people learn from experience. My point is that he opens this up with a somewhat false argument that in school you read things in a book and then you're done. That's not the case even at the worst schools (well maybe the worst). And then goes on to suggest that programming, UI design, and product strategy (whatever that is) is some how different. Here my point was that virtually every vocation in the world shares the trait that you need to practice the vocation. That's why there's actual cars in autoshops.
What a structured vocational education tries to do is to move you from topic to topic so that you cover the ground of a professional. This avoids the problem where as an apprentice you become really good at fixing this one particular bug, because that's the main job your mentor gets called out to do. Of course, you can move to a system where there are required skills you must exibit over your apprenticeship, but now you're just moving to structured education in a new cloth.
We are left with a whole new breed of people who are craftsmen but being taught to like they are academics.
I still think you're reading an implication that is not actually being made, and subsequently getting huffy about it. I see no "clear implication" other than "this is not how those three things are most commonly learned currently". I cannot understand where it is that he is posing those three things against all other things.