You make a good analysis, and I don't disagree with you. The crux of my argument is more like this: Programming is a knowledge field, so any proficiency is jus

You make a good analysis, and I don't disagree with you. The crux of my argument is more like this: Programming is a knowledge field, so any proficiency is just deeper know-how. "Stuff you know." Is that quantitative? Not exactly. I certainly don't think someone who knows 50 languages is a better programmer than someone who knows 2 languages, by virtue of the quantity. Some things are memorization: how to write a class, for instance. And some things are not: how to model a situation into an appropriately-designed class. One requires application of knowledge, I guess you could say. Qualitative. But you can't apply your knowledge of different class designs without knowing why they're appropriate. That's not purely qualitative. Am I splitting hairs? At this point, probably. I just think the arguments I responded to are poorly worded. Yours is not, and I can't disagree with it.