I think the final point illustrates this one pretty succinctly: 'what will be left will no longer give us the joy of hacking.' Personally I build my own version of almost every software tool for which I regularly (like, daily) use a UI. So for e.g. personal note-taking, continuous integration, server orchestration, even for an IDE: I could use Apple Notes, CircleCI, Chef, VSCode, but I instead build my own versions of these.

I'm not a masochist; they're often built on top of components, e.g. my IDE uses the Monaco editor. But working on these tools gives me a sense of ownership, and lets me hack them into exactly the thing I want rather than e.g. the thing that Microsoft's (talented! well-paid! numerous!) designers want me to use. Hacking on them brings me joy, and gives me a sense of ownership.

Like an idealised traditional carpenter, I make (within reason) my own tools. Is this the most rational, engineering-minded approach? I mean, obviously not. But it brings me joy -- and it also helps me get shit done.

If I had to guess, antirez was describing engineering managers and tech leads that have (mis)read “clean code” or similar works, and take them as commandments from on high rather than tools and approaches that may be helpful or applicable in some circumstances.

Or, more generally, the fact that most of what the software industry produces is much more in line with “art” than “engineering” (especially when looked at from a Mechanical Engineer or Civil Engineer). We have so much implementation flexibility to achieve very similar results that it can be dizzying from the standpoint of other engineering fields. consider

In my view it is about design that requires taste and creativity. Engineering is about function, design is about form. If I build something that solves a problem but if it isn't well designed it can mean that no one actually uses even if it is good piece of engineering.

It means you are an engineer.