> There is some innate affinity for computer programming which you must be born with, and cannot be taught.<p>This being a falsehood is a matter of considerable debate, and it's impossible to prove (There are certainly some people with very low ability for computer programming, to the point of effectively useless. How would you prove this was entirely nurture and not nature?). This is a not a good candidate for a "list of falsehoods" article.
> at least the outcome of <i>integer</i> maths is always defined.<p>Assuming you mean “integer arithmetic”, the answer is a resounding <i>yes</i>, it's well-defined. Of course, so-called “machine integers” are not a faithful model of the integers, and, in particular, so-called “signed integers” in C aren't a faithful model of anything nice.
Reminds me <a href="http://programmer.97things.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Write_Code_for_Humans_not_Machines" rel="nofollow">http://programmer.97things.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/Write_...</a>
Terrible list. Lots of things are straw men, or just wrong. And do we <i>really</i> need another one of these lists? Next we'll be back to "X considered harmful". Ugh.