One of the fundamental flaw
s in this otherwise humorous diatribe
is the fact that Picasso
wasn't a "Picasso artist," Seurat
wasn't a "Seurat artist," and so forth. It should be noted that classifying a programmer in terms of a famous artist would be like classifying Picasso as a "Bjarne Stroudstrup
artist - having so many different perspectives
on the same image
which ends up making the whole thing an incoherent mess
," or Andy Warhol
as a "Niklaus Wirth
artist - creates an image which is accessible
to everyone but only truly understandable
to a few."
That isn't to say that there isn't any sort of overlap, but it'd probably be better to refer to them as "cubist programmers" and "pointilist programmers" and the like. The genres were defined by a few notable artists, yes, but defining the entire genre by a single artist is typically unfair.
Now, if you were to say, for example, "Leonardo daVinci - RMS" and make other such direct comparisons, then the metaphor holds up better. But otherwise, it's kind of insulting to pointilist programmers, as well as pointilist artists, to make it seem as though there is only Seurat.