First of all, let him speak for himself. Or do you claim to read his thoughts?

Secondly, no he doesn't seem to understand. The statement he disagreed with was: We cannot put software on the kind of assembly line/stamping process which is obviously a point about the fact that we have no assembly line process for writing new software.

He replied with: Stamping out software is what your Windows/OSX/linux installation CD/DVD is which is obviously missing the entire point. We are talking about writing the software, not putting the software on the disk. It's a distinction you've clearly also missed.

Is mind-reading the only way people can understand each other? Words don't seem that unreliable.

Another way to look at it is coach builders. 100 years ago, there were many more coach builders and custom car manufacturers than there are today. Car was also a luxury item. That started to be disrupted by mass produced and mass distributed cars, like Ford.

Today, most companies that hire "web developers", are either building things using packaged libraries or modifying things to fit. They are not taking off the shelf components and connecting them without modification. Even tools like Salesforce.com default to people writing code to solve complex configuration issues. The UI is catching up, but it's not there yet.

The whole quote shows he disagrees and thinks the analogue is wrong

You only excerpted part of the quote which was contradicting the other interpretation of what the product was, not the explanation of what he thought it was.

I mean, gvb's alternate analogy is also a good one. Yes, writing software is like configuring the assembly line, and yes both of those things are expensive work for highly-trained professionals. And yes the interesting difference is that 99.999% of the cost of making software is this design, whereas in car manufacture it's maybe 5% or 20% or something (and the actual stamping is the rest). This is a good analogy, sure! It's also hopefully old news for basically all of us. Isn't it?

But sologoub's analogy is a different one, and it's also a good analogy, and in my experience a less-overused one. And insofar as it's more-novel (to me), it's more instructive, and thus "correcting" it with an overused analogy suggests lack of understanding.

Sologoub's point, to attempt to restate and simplify, is this: the value and scarcity of modern engineering is comparable to the value and scarcity of pre-industrial artisans. Industrial artisans because less valuable when industrialization commoditized their work. And sologoub proposes that this could one day happen to software development (and other engineering), and if/when it does, (software) engineering will cease to be lucrative. I think it's an interesting model; I have no idea if it will be possible to industrialize software development, short of god-AI taking over all human labour.

Artisans always were tied into the production as well as the design. Mass writing ability however is more what you're seeing like the internet did to journalism. I anticipate something like THAT happening, not something related to artisans really.