Interesting how JS still doesn't live up to AS3. Everyone always discredits Flash... but if you're trying to make a Physics-based browser game, it still seems appropriate!
One thing that struck me about this article is the poor use of punctuation. It really damages the credibility of the author when their language is so choppy. It might seem superficial, but this completely ruined the author's argument for me. Just one example: "At the current rate, 25 Bitcoins are generated every 10 minutes although; this will be continuously halved every four years...". That semicolon is so wrong.
While I agree with the author's general sentiment here, he doesn't offer any evidence for his claim (besides anecdotal). Many successful people do put work first, plain and simple.
I choose to spend time not working because I value things other than wealth/power/work (as most people do). But if you want to make a lot of money, working 100 hours a week is a pretty obvious way to do that, IMO.
Does anyone else feel like Lehrer is receiving more criticism than he deserves? The fact that he defended the fabricated Dylan quotes is regrettable, but it's so trivial compared to lies we hear everyday from people we "trust" (media, politicians, bloggers, friends). And I don't give a damn about the self plagiarism. It was sloppy, not evil.
I personally wish we could forget about the whole thing. After this debacle, I'd trust Lehrer over almost any other science writer. If he ever writes Frontal Cortex again, I'm sure it will be the most thoroughly fact-checked journalism available.
Proposing that code should be simple, brief, and elegant is not insightful. This is like a lawmaker saying: "Don't worry about writing down laws, let's simply always be just! It's easy!" It's not that easy. The details matter.
Codification and standardization are powerful tools that our entire civilization relies on. They minimize variation, thereby easing communication between interacting parties. If everyone is on the same page, it's simpler to express complex ideas. That's the whole point of writing coding standards.
Coding standards minimize superficial variation (where do the curly braces go? how do I format variable names?) so that we can talk about things that matter (how should this algorithm work? what are the side effects of this function?).
Of course, the other end of the spectrum is important too. Variation promotes innovation and creativity. It's cliche, but I think you have to find the right balance between codification and individual intuition. In addition, you should be willing to modify coding standards occasionally (just like all standards are revised and improved over time).