I couldn't disagree with statement any more strongly. The real question here isn't the quality of the software but the quality of the documentation and the motivation behind the software.
1) The primary purpose of the software appears to be engineering "pilot error" out of the equation and to allow for an overall deterioration of pilot quality. Instead of the software allowing for management of complex tasks in a fast moving environment it is being utilized to perform standard tasks in normal operating conditions. in effect the software is flying the plane and the "pilot flying" is monitoring (supposedly).
2) Not only do we have ongoing issues relating to "what is it doing now" but the software flies the plane...literally until it can't and then hands off a plane that by definition is beyond the capability of the AP and accordingly far beyond the capacity of many current airline captains to intuitively recover.
The simple reality is that current FBW software is contributing tremendously to the erosion of overall skills in the cockpit and a direct contributing factor in the increase in accidents directly attributable to the lack of hand flying ability being demonstrated again and again.
At some point either we go back to pilots actually piloting or we just turn automated airplanes over to bus and trolley drivers...