[mustache_kimono]

> Assembled software - using multiple libraries in place of crafting (almost) every piece of it - is the opposite of artisanal software.

> The chances of this project failing are much higher using this customized approach than if I used the assembly-line method, but it doesn't matter to me - coding it this way is already so much more fun.

I am sympathetic to this way of thinking about "artisanal". I guess for me it has so much baggage re: food, I don't think of it this way. I'd perhaps call that/your way the "DIY way", because you're right -- it is sometimes appealing and advantageous, even if I'm not certain that's what the article intended.

[meiraleal]

> even if I'm not certain that's what the article intended.

I have the impression that was exactly the intention of the article:

  > In the coming years, we’ll see more and more people making software like someone building a table in their backyard or garage, they’ll enjoy the process and add their own personal touch.
  > If you love coding the way we do it now, keep at it! enjoy every moment, improve yourself, learn new things, keep coding!

[mustache_kimono]

> > I don't think writing in x86_64 is any more artisanal than Python or JavaScript. > I have the impression that was exactly the intention of the article:

Okay, but you seem to be ignoring the first half of the article. You know the part that tells us it is a great big joke:

"Real Programmers wrote in machine code. Not FORTRAN. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language. Machine Code. Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers. Directly."

[meiraleal]

True, I think I really skipped that quote. I disagree with this part and think it doesn't link very well with the conclusion or with software artisans. Not sure if I mixed it up or the author :)