I think you missed the point he was making. His argument is not about good or bad programmers; it's about the nature of programming.

He asserts that the "fun" parts of programming tend to be the most regular, and thus an experienced programmer tends to automate them. In other words everything that works disappears into a library. Everything that doesn't work or is too flaky to automate is now front and center. The OP believes working with these things is not fun.

I tend to disagree with this though. (see comment elsewhere)