God stop it with the Dunning–Kruger bollocks already. In my experience, people who refer to it are themselves rather shallow in their analysis of _any_ phenomenon at hand. It seems the thought form here is that anything even remotely falling out of your (very broad, apparently, huh) horizon is bound to be ridiculed and discarded by you as unintelligent nonsense. You're reading a poem, man. It's very clear from the reading that the author does not imply we have to stop writing _all_ software completely, might as well go back to the woods, etc. The poem deals with a very particular brand of software, or rather, software development in its own right; and it dissects the subject beautifully. Don't ever attribute anything you simply don't understand to stupidity. Now having read your comment I must say it's you who comes off as obnoxious, especially with them Kruger and Einstein references.
I'll stop using Dunning-Kruger when it becomes irrelevant. And no, I don't consider myself any less prone to it than other people, that's when I've found it most useful. And Dunning-Kruger is not "attributing stupidity" (talk about a shallow take), it's actually most insidious among those who are experts in one field, hence they've spent so much time there they have zero experience in other specialized domains (again, something I've recognized as one of my biggest weaknesses; thanks Dunning-Kruger!)
In my experience, people who get offended by Dunning-Kruger don't even realize they are prime examples of it.
Watch it.