Sorry! But the real world is complex and so are the issues in software development. The 'analogy' in this case is a piece of real-world history. You may question its applicability to the world of software (as liz has), but you cannot deny it's reality.

Simple analogies are fine for simple points, but this isn't a simple point. The purpose was not to justify that component re-use was either good or bad. It was to illustrate that it's utility varies with complexity. That, IMO, required enough detail to illustrate the transition points from useful to deleterious.

Would you suggest that Knuth's 3 volumes should have been done in 3/4 of a volume? :)