A: GOOD MEANS SHIPPING AND PLEASING YOUR CUSTOMERS
B: NO YOU FOOL! GOOD MEANS WRITING CLEAR CODE THAT OTHER HACKERS CAN READ
C: NO YOU FOOLS! GOOD IS A HAPPY MEDIUM BETWEEN BOTH OF THOSE THINGS
D: DEBATE IS HARD, LET'S GO SHOPPING!
The article is almost in the 'you might be a <foo> if <bar>' style (most common instantiation I am familar with is 'you might be a redneck if <insert denigrating attribute of redneck>' And in the spirit of that humor I liked it.
That being said, if you ask me as a hiring manager what I consider 'good' programming, its 'readable/understandable', it does what it is supposed to do, and it has tests.
Bad programmers are all alike; every good programmer is good in his or her own way.
When talking about "Good cars" for instance, what makes a good car for a mother of 5 is likely different from what makes a good car for a single person who is very worried about the environment and both of those are different from a "Good car" for drag racing.
Defining the word "good" is a philosophical rabbit hole for sure, but if someone comes out and says "a good programmer is someone who writes maintainable code", and someone else comes out and says "a good programmer is someone who writes fast code", and someone else comes along and says "a good programmer is someone who writes code that pleases the customer", you're still having a meaningful discussion about which "good" is better, so to speak.
So of course that "good" tradeoff to one programmer might be a "bad" one to another.
If programmer A understands recursion and programmer B does not programmer A will write better code regardless of deadlines.