My first thought was "This thing reads like stereo instructions."
He says a lot of really simple things, then tries to make them mean something really complicated by inference:
"But this is just the essence of software; it is what software does anyway. Software engineering aims at clarity and fluidity because these are what software essentially and distinctively is about. A bit is precisely 0 or 1, and easily changeable between them. Software is clarity and fluidity."
He also says some things as if they are different, but they aren't:
"It is not, really, exactly, about better means of abstraction, but more like better means of changing abstractions."
You can't have "better" without "change". It's a requirement. "Change", however, could be better or worse. So "better" is a better way to say it.
It might make more sense as opposed to other propositions: some might say software engineering is about helping build better software, or building it more efficiently, or having more control over the building. The idea of helping with clarity and fluidity is somewhat different.
The point is not very substantial. But saying something simple is not in itself a fault; the real test is: does it make a difference? It might claim to be 'a different way of looking at things', but what difference would it actually make to real activities?
Maybe stressing clarity and fluidity could make some difference. One can imagine asking of a suggested software engineering method or tool: does it make it clearer to the developer what they are doing? or does it make it easier to change what has been built into something unpredicted? That seems like it might well make or discern a difference in the method or tool.
The next question is: does it make a good difference? . . .
He says a lot of really simple things, then tries to make them mean something really complicated by inference:
"But this is just the essence of software; it is what software does anyway. Software engineering aims at clarity and fluidity because these are what software essentially and distinctively is about. A bit is precisely 0 or 1, and easily changeable between them. Software is clarity and fluidity."
He also says some things as if they are different, but they aren't:
"It is not, really, exactly, about better means of abstraction, but more like better means of changing abstractions."
You can't have "better" without "change". It's a requirement. "Change", however, could be better or worse. So "better" is a better way to say it.