I checked the inception of links, and I still stick by the saying "most programmers can't program."
Perhaps you (as well as Shelley) were misinterpreting the meaning of such a statement.
Clearly programmers can program. Even an incompetent kid with elementary understanding of computer science can program. It doesn't take much to learn to program. Someone could learn to program in a few days, at most. So no one will argue that "programmers can't program".
What this insinuates- the failure of 199/200 applicants when confronted with a very simple test- is that "programmers can't program well."
The argument from Shelley, is weak at best. She argues that the 200 applicants do not represent most programmers. That they actually represent a minority of programmers, while all other programmers already have jobs. This ignores the basic logic that those programmers had to apply for their jobs. Whether or not it was 199/200, it is not unreasonable to predict the number of failures would be very high even if we roll back time where CS degrees were not as popular and the field was not as flooded (although it isn't flooded, as there is an incredible need for programmers now and in the predictable future, which only reveals things will get worse- not better, even if Shelley is right. Over time, if the trend is consistent (199/200) then eventually most programmers WILL not know how to program.)
Anyway, I have more evidence to support this argument that "programmers can't program."
There is a lot of open source code available. There are a lot of arguments online about efficiency in code, simple topics, advanced subjects.
There are also an enormous amount of computer science graduates who will tell you upfront- "I would never hire most of my peers to program for me." Horror stories will abound of graduates who could barely figure out how to turn their computers on. This isn't an exaggeration.
Most CS students, when confronted with the idea that most CS students are highly incompetent even near graduation, will- for the most part- deny this is a real problem. You want to know WHY? Because incompetent people can't identify their incompetence, or the incompetence or COMPETENCE of others. They will see everyone as equals. Meanwhile, just as Dunning-Kruger suggests, the very few competent students will be fully aware of their peer's incompetence, and the mistakes they will make is to believe they are more competent than they appear. So they who say "I would never hire most." are probably incorrect, and would instead state "I would never hire nearly all." or "I would not only never hire most, but go out of my way to make sure other's don't." Whatever the next level of "They are incompetent" is.
I would however be willing to tone down my "Most programmers" to "Many programmers" or even "Some programmers" if someone had sufficient evidence to suggest the various levels of competence. Perhaps by sampling a large amount of open source code, and then having an expert(s) analyze their competence on a scale- to determine what % have no clue compared to what % are competent enough but not expert, or are obviously experts. This probably wouldn't be very hard- would just take the time to do such research. Perhaps develop some criteria to determine such competence to scale (No commenting at all, -5 pts, Sparse commenting, 0 pts, Expert commenting +5 pts, etc.).
I'd be willing to concede the level of incompetence of others.
Also, I am most likely myself to underestimate the incompetence of others. I am no expert myself, although I am competent enough to solve most problems- so I can only identify people who have no clue or are very newbie. I can't differentiate between expert code- so I would assume they are all competent. It's the safest assumption.
I don't have all too much experience personally reading through hundreds of other's code (who does besides a career person or expert?). However, I base my opinions from all the articles, professional programmers I talk to, and comments I read online (from expert-level users to people of questionable opinion).