Yep, a very badly written article.

I made a full pass but was annoyed with the author's contention that "History of History of Software" (WTF does this even mean?) should be treated as seriously as "Computer Science" itself. While there is some logic in saying "Computing" involves "Computer Science + all its various usages in various domains" focusing on the latter (ancillary) and not the former (primary) is certainly "dumbing down" as Knuth correctly takes issue. A good parallel would be a "Scientific Theory" and its "various realizations in various domains".

This, for me, was the final validation that this article is not to be taken seriously;

In his paper, Campbell-Kelly offered a “biographical mea culpa” for his own early work that he now reads with a “mild flush of embarrassment.” He came to see his erstwhile enthusiasm for technical history as a youthful indiscretion and his conversion to business history as an act of redemption,