The cathedral example does not work. The author clearly explains how the aesthetic of a cathedral helps put people in the right reverent frame of mind to worship, which is the action they are there to perform, then dismisses that beauty as not functional, as mere aesthetic. It seems clear to me if the design helps them get in the right frame if mind, it is functional. Furthermore, historically, the point of stained glass windows was to share some of the stories of the bible with a largely illiterate population. Again, it was beautiful but not merely decorative. The art of the cathedral had purpose and function.

I have a Certifucate in GIS. The mapmaking class I took emphasized the fact that a good map -- one well designed for its intended purpose of efficiently conveying information -- will be perceived as "beautiful" in much the same way that good engineering is typically perceived as aesthetically appealling but a beautiful map is not necessarily a good map. In organizations where GIS is not well integrated, you wind up with "map shops" who are not involved in any really important part of collecting the data or using it. Their only role is to make maps for the people who do use the data. Map shops inevitably become obsessed with making beautiful maps, to the point where embellishment may well interfere with effective use of the map.

I have come to believe that beauty (of all kinds) is valued because it is a qick and dirty proxy for real value since things which are well designed seem to universally have visual appeal. Therefore, if it is not aesthetically appealling, it probably is not really all that good in terms of quality. I think beauty then also gets routinely maligned because it can be a quick and dirty means to fake value, to falsely signal value, when it doesn't really exist. I think this conflict will never be resolved because both things will remain true. We will continue to remark with awe and wonder on the "beauty" of high quality work and continue to deride low quality work which tries to cover up its defects by slathering it in prettiness.

For those adequately in the know to understand the code, there will continue to be people who talk about programming in terms of "beauty". For those not in the know, it is too abstract to "see" the beauty of it.