I don't agree with most of these points, nor do I find the tone of the author to be particularly productive, as they are effectively swinging bladed weapons around while blindfolded.

They propose a number of personal beliefs about what constitutes competency, whereas I will contend that there is no "silver bullet" by which a non-programmer (or XYZ profession) may assess the competency of the potential hire.

I could write a different article on programmers who seek to undermine existing code in order to get a green field project out of it. While I can completely comprehend what may lie behind a total rewrite (and have plowed through some rather thick ones) I would be wary of hiring such a rigidly ideological person who suggested "throwing it all away and doing it over" as this person is likely somewhat obtuse in their own way.

Human factors also matter.