No, I don't have it backwards and that is indeed the kind of programmer he was talking about. I am only saying that the "This codebase already has something that is slightly different; we can probably generalize that slightly and save a lot of headaches" situation is just a special case of better, more adaptive problem solving that doesn't necessarily rely on the "codebase already [having] something that is slightly different".
And I know the article is not new, the point of "still" is that the article seeks to address the undervaluation of these programmers, yet doesn't give them their full due. This is because most (if not all) of the same programmers who practice that special case of efficient problem solving also are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving, and Cook doesn't mention this.
> are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving
I still don't understand what you are trying to say. The entire point of the article is that "people who are capable of the more generalized form of efficient problem solving are more valuable". He's not saying that you never have to sit down and get your hands dirty and write something from scratch, or that the most efficient people never do that.
You are agreeing with what he wrote and acting like he said the opposite.
And I know the article is not new, the point of "still" is that the article seeks to address the undervaluation of these programmers, yet doesn't give them their full due. This is because most (if not all) of the same programmers who practice that special case of efficient problem solving also are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving, and Cook doesn't mention this.