I think its accurate, not "elitist".
> You seem to confuse "coder" with "computer scientist" or "software engineer".
The claim was that the experience provided a broad foundation with regard to "software development". That is a broad field. Lots of experience in CRUD-style web apps isn't a broad base for "software development" generally, its a narrow (but potentially deep within that narrow domain) base.
That's not to say its not a useful base, but its not broad. Also note that the response in GP to the claim of a broad base -- while pointing out that it was not broad -- also wasn't judgemental in way which justifies the claim of elitism. It explicitly recognized the project as great and encouraged continuing from there.
> These two combined suggests that the author can indeed be a perfectly productive and effective creator of computer programs. I see no reason "coder" isn't a perfectly good title for such a person.
Nothing in GP was contrary to these points, so you seem to be arguing against things no one said.
As the ecosystem of toolsets, frameworks and libraries mature, the number of opportunities for well-informed "commoners" with the right motivation to make computers do what they want them to increases violently.
Lemma 1: Simple CRUD-style web-apps and scripts can be very useful.
Lemma 2: Before-mentioned tools can be build to a perfectly serviceable standard without a comprehensive understanding of computer science.
These two combined suggests that the author can indeed be a perfectly productive and effective creator of computer programs. I see no reason "coder" isn't a perfectly good title for such a person.