Among all the non-programmers I've talked to about work, I've never found one who doesn't have to deal with some sort of constant, repetitive negative feedback. Teachers have to deal with some kids that simply won't stop acting out, and who continually perform poorly on assignments (not to mention parents happy to tell them everything that the teacher is doing wrong). The salespeople have countless deals they fail to close. The manager has to make painful decisions about other peoples' livelihoods, and absorb the criticisms coming down from higher up the chain. The artist has to deal with everyone being a critic, and doesn't have the luxury of dealing with things that either work or don't work, it's all subjective. The doctor can't cure everyone. The lawyer can't get justice for everybody. The data-entry clerk peon has to ignore that they're completely replaceable and that they'll probably be replaced by a computer sooner or later. Anyone building anything (not just software) has to deal with the reality that 95% of the time, it's not done yet, and you still have more work to do and things to fix.

That's not to say that some people aren't going to be happier in certain fields than others, or that some subsets of the field fit some mindsets better than others, but software is pretty good work. The article acknowledges this right up front, and then ignores that to dwell on the negatives. It blew my mind a little to see such a negative perspective. If I fix a simple bug in my code, it doesn't bother me much, because I know I sometimes make mistakes. If I find and fix a really interesting subtle thing, then it means I learned something new, and that the product is now in better shape than it was yesterday. If there's a usability issue, it's an opportunity to figure out a new way to do it. And all the while I have the constant positive feedback of knowing that this thing that I built is doing something, I can directly watch it do that thing, and that it's being used by people to get stuff done.

Unless you build everything exactly right the first time, and never have to deal with external changes that mean the software needs to change, you're never going to be free of negative feedback. So you should start looking at why you're letting the negative parts drive your attitude.

EDIT: My own personal idiosyncrasy is that I get very suspicious, maybe even paranoid, about a complex task if everything seems to work right the first time and I don't have a few cycles of negative feedback. I know it's complex, and so I don't expect perfection out of the gate, so a few runs through the "fix one thing, find another issue" washer are oddly reassuring to me. Even though rationally I know that fixing things I knew to test for doesn't mean it's any less likely that there are errors in the things I haven't thought to test.