I find this topic fascinating, but I'm afraid to contribute because my knowledge is not nearly as deep as many of the participants. Also, I don't want to alienate anyone.
I don't see any method of programming to be superior or inferior. As someone said earlier, if it can play on a 2600 then it is a 2600 game. I've enjoyed the creations of Spiceware and Champ Games. What they are able to do is magic to me. I've been learning assembly and I find it cool. If I tend to talk about that more, or seem to prefer it, it's only because it's within my limited sphere of understanding. I haven't tried bB, but I don't see why that would be considered inauthentic. If it produces a game that can play on the Atari, it's fine by me.
I don't see non-ARM games as an endangered species. Look at Easmith's games. That guy is pumping them out and they are super! My personal favorite of the last few years, Astronomer, isn't an ARM game. Everytime I say I'm going to stop playing, I end up playing five more rounds. Astronomer looks like it was made 40 years ago. Why do I keep going back? The concept is addictive.
I'm trying to not let programming get in the way of playing. I used to translate films from French, Mandarin, and Russian. When I would watch movies at home to relax, I spent more time thinking about how I would translate a line differently instead of actually watching the movie. It kind of ruined cinema for me. I don't want that to happen to me in regards to my Atari fun.
I will end with this: This discussion has got me thinking more about game concepts and less about the various programming methods. When you hit upon a good idea for a game, that is what makes the game. The presentation is worthless if the end result isn't entertaining. This is what I appreciate most right now - the imagination it takes to actually put these things together and make them fun. Kudos to you all