Lengthy and arbitrary. I can make up definitions for two common terms and write an article about that dichotomy too, but that won't make it worth reading.
The article can be summarised in a simple sentence: To be a good technologist (let's use a neutral term), you need to be able to do more than just write code.
I disagree that it is arbitrary, and with your summary. There is a very real difference between what is labeled "programmer" and "developer". I have been working with a very bright intern lately. He is a very technically proficient programmer... but he lacks the big picture view. Every task is approached and estimated by the time it would take to solve a comparable coursework assignment; but the real world is messy. Figuring out the big picture of his project -- the system -- took far more time than any of the interesting technical challenges. Only in hindsight does he understand why certain "obvious" high-level design decisions were as emphasized early on.
I liked the thesis that development gets harder as programming gets easier, but I think it misses the mark as it strays toward 'because kids these days don't know about coding to the metal'. I think the problem, as has been lamented here in the past, is the speed of prototyping versus implementing. I have had to sit through a few too many discussions across from a former developer, or development manager, and having to explain that while he was able to construct a mock-up that looks like what we want, in minutes!, we have not even gotten started on a real solution. Within hours, almost anyone here could simulate the basic Twitter functionality... but scaling it to half their size?
Sorry, maybe I didn't express myself correctly. The arbitrary part is the naming. Since that's presented as the main insight of the article, it taints the whole.
It would have been better, though less catchy, to talk about, say, junior developers, and senior developers.
That would not have been better, because it implies that seniority implies competence.
What differentiates a programmer from a developer in the author's parlance isn't merely experience. A lot of newcomers to the field today build prototypes and put them into production, and believe that they got it right because their software is in production. That it's a maintenance nightmare doesn't enter into their minds, and as a result, their next project also turns into a maintenance nightmare.
That's a big problem where I work; we have a lot of software clear written by people without even a vague clue about web development (e.g. they don't use the HTTP session for anything, instead using lots of Java code to maintain session data), and instead of learning to write better software, they learn to repeat the same mistakes.
Just because you've been a developer for 10 years doesn't make you a senior developer. In my first job, I was the junior (obviously), and was working with this Iraqi guy who had the title "Senior Software Engineer", and had about 5 years of experience. His code was some of the worst I've seen in my life. Particularly galling since his salary was 50% higher than mine (and I was on the high end of junior!).
The article can be summarised in a simple sentence: To be a good technologist (let's use a neutral term), you need to be able to do more than just write code.