I don't buy a "genuine inexperienced coder" postulate. I would only agree with "experienced coder with no experience in C++". I extensively reviewed early Bitcoin code and I see patterns of writing style and design that aren't congruent with a genuine lack of experience in coding.
I hold no opinion on who Satoshi is, but my professional opinion about the code base is (either, equiprobable):
1) experienced programmer or manager from an organization that used older languages (like COBOL, MUMPS, FORTRAN, SIMSCRIPT, etc. ) doing his/her first project in C++;
Nash was proficient coding Mathematica and presumably he learned Fortran in college. And presumably he was programming at RAND.
But afaik, all his programs were small.
But I also have my doubts about Nash coding a large scale application in C++ (something which he had obviously never done), which is why I never put much weight in the theory, but I was shocked to find the other strongly corroborating evidence I explained.
Why did Nash disappear from publishing and public touring from 2004 to 2006? And again from 2008 to 2010. Why does he never provide a detailed response or account of how Bitcoin relates to his lifelong and recent obsession with ideal money?
The theory of Nash working with a secret group seems most attractive to me. And the group made it appear that Bitcoin was code by amateurs. But how would you get Nash onboard to do such a thing? And would Nash trust such a group? Well Nash is very rational about game theory and he was always emphasizing the benefit of the group in game theory, so perhaps he could have been rationally persuaded.
Yes that is important. And I wonder if Nash outsmarted his elite handlers? That has been my thesis.
what is a good programmer?
If you need to ask, then it would be difficult to explain it to you succinctly. Good programmers know it when they see it.