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.