This was painful for me to read. It's an important topic, but the author's argument isn't even false. The Software Craftsmanship movement does make assertions

This was painful for me to read. It's an important topic, but the author's argument isn't even false. The Software Craftsmanship movement does make assertions about the aesthetics of software, but more importantly it links the cleanliness of the design with the quality (read: capabilities) of the software. By saying your client doesn't care about the aesthetics of your software, they only care that it works, and therefore software is not a craft you're committing the fallacy of denying the premise because you're asserting those two things are disjoint and independent. The idea of "software as a craft" assumes the two are inextricably linked. I'd like to add that people who have seriously thought about our field would know how futile it is to make analogies to different discipline. Software is sort of a meta-engineering discipline, where we try to come up with processes and practices that we could use to produce applications that have completely different domains. I think this makes Computer Science intrinsically self-referential and therefore intrinsically different from any other engineering practice or craft. By using analogies you're demonstrating that you don't know or accept this, which ought to automatically disqualify you from the discussion. I know I stated a lot of the above more pompously and strongly than warranted. It's hopefully a better read this way and more of a conversation starter than a reflection of my character.