Since then, Andy's done very well by this finding, and he has milked it rather vigorously. This grows tiring, though, because such polemic tends to be free of fidelity.
Andy tells us that he'll never hire people who are out-of-shape because they have character flaws. He publicly "redesigns" websites, making bold, unsubstantiated claims, free of any understanding of the functional design requirements. Then, he puts antagonistic bunk like this out there.
The problem with the post linked here, is that it presents opinion as dogmatic fact, when many strong arguments can be made for another approach. Meanwhile, this notion is, in my mind, quite dangerous to young designers who are already trying to learn too many things.
I don't hire designers who write code. I hire designers, developers, and strategists who work well together. They all work, literally, next to one another.
By this, I mean that we don't pocket designers in one corner and developers into another, like some agencies do. Instead, a designer sits next to a strategist, who sits next to a developer, and so on. By doing so, each of the professionals we've hired learns why their colleagues' concerns matter. Meanwhile, by allowing each to be concentrate on their respective craft, we do better work for our clients.
For the record, I think it's great if you're a designer who can write a little code. That being said, I think it's much more important if you can communicate well, write effective briefs, build good wireframes, think about big picture strategic concerns, and all kinds of other stuff.
Then of course, I've played right into Andy's game. Once again, his bull-in-a-china-shop act has resulted in my saying more than I probably should.