Are you joking, it was 2 paragraphs. And did not offer any definition.
You are reading into it you're own internal monologue, and thinking the article stated more than it did.
So if we go by the article using example of 'making a table', you could say writers/authors/accountants would NOT be artisans. Since they are not physically crafting something.
or
If it is more about "enjoy the process, ... , improve yourself, learn new things", then it is very much more general and includes many fields.
No, I'm reading critically. Just because an article does not readily offer up a definition, it does not mean it isn't working with one.
However, I'll try to be intellectually charitable, here, and say it's plausible a reader could feel the article unhelpfully conflates many definitions of "artisan". Unfortunately, all such definitions don't make much sense in the context of programming. What's wrong is not the concluding sentiment of "enjoy the process, ... , improve yourself, learn new things", it's that "artisan", even in its many definitions, doesn't touch upon those noble sentiments. Attorneys and programmers simply aren't artisans, even if they enjoy their process, and improving themselves, and learning new things, and your insistence to the contrary is self-aggrandizement.
That isn't to say I would limit "artisanal" to the physical crafts. I might extend it to any endeavor where the process is part of our use of the product. Like -- I may know this or that writer drinks 20 year old Scotch, and smokes only three cigars a day, while he types at exactly 45 words per minute on his decades old Smith Corona. I can understand being romantically engaged by that process.
However, while this kind of process might be important to our enjoyment of that literature, is is almost entirely unimportant to our use of software, because the artifact is still what is most important, by a mile. I couldn't care less whether a game designer copied a method from Boost or wrote it from scratch him/herself, just as, I couldn't care less whether my attorney saw the face of God after smelling the dust mites in the Westlaw Reporters at the law library. The romance of the "artisan" is almost entirely incoherent in this context.
It's why "I am an Artisanal Attorney (because I make my own paper and write briefs with a quill)" is so funny. Do me a favor and try to write your own. "I am an Artisanal Programmer (because I do all my Objective C programming on a NeXTcube)..."
I'd say you have instead backed yourself into a corner where nothing is artisan, that the term can't be applied to any field at all.
If it is purely "the artifact is still what is most important, by a mile", then of course there are many that would include iPhones, an algorithm, a mathematical proof,... etc...
If an artisan can only be judged by their products, then any trash that is popularly agreed upon as 'artisanal' can make the producers an 'artisan'. It is all 'in the eye of the beholder'.
Thanks for the intellectual charity. I'll buy a coffee with it for what it is worth.
Edit: To stretch this further, if 'artisanal' using a 'traditional' or 'non-mechanist' methods, then since programming is now many decades old, I could say ::
"Well son, I'm programming in VBScript, like my father did, and his father before him. In the traditional manner of a dying generation. I don't dig these new fangled editors with their 'code completion', leave VSCode to the kids. I do things the old way and it works and my customers love it".
That's simply not true. I said:
>> That isn't to say I would limit "artisanal" to the physical crafts. I might extend it to any endeavor where the process is part of our use of the product.
And went on to explain how a writer might be an "artisan".
> and offered no definition or real argument against the sentiment of the article.
That's because I do agree that some of the sentiments of the article are good, but I also disagree that muddling such good sentiments with the wrong word, "artisan", is good. I said "enjoy the process, ... , improve yourself, learn new things" isn't "artisan" because there is no definition of "artisan" which encompasses those things. An Oxford don might also enjoy the process, improve him/herself, and learn new things. He/she may be in a what we now consider a "skilled" profession (though significantly not a "trade"), but he/she never was and is not now an "artisan". See: https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=artis... and https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=artis...
> No argument for what is artisan, and why it does not apply.
Again, no, I don't need to make an argument for what definition applies when I've ceded the ground that any one definition is better than another.
> If an artisan can only be judged by their products, then any trash that is popularly agreed upon as 'artisanal' can make the producers an 'artisan'.
I'm pretty sure you've completely misunderstood me here. Please reread my comment (or see the double quoted section above). My argument was precisely the opposite. Programmers, and attorneys are NOT artisans because what matters most is their product, whereas bakers and cobblers MIGHT BE artisans because their process MAY contribute to our use and enjoyment of the product.
> Edit: To stretch this further, if 'artisanal' using a 'traditional' or 'non-mechanist' methods, then since programming is now many decades old, I could say ::
Yes! Exactly. This is why this notion is ridiculous.
