The history section is really cool (edit: OK, maybe not!), but I find the conclusion horribly opinionated. Alright, making sounds on a computer might not be as fun as playing with real Legos and getting your hands dirty. So if what you want is fun, then yes, analog can make a lot of sense. But this article, reflecting some general opinion, I believe, goes a lot further...

"Today there are “analog modeling” digital synths that are good enough at mimicking the character of old-school imperfection the average ear probably can’t discern the origin of the sound."

That should be "the honest ear can't discern". Digital synth programmers have recently been going to great lengths to emulate the sound of analog (lengths that I personally find ridiculous, but that's beside the point), to such an extent that claiming to be able to recognize analog emulation is, in my opinion, delusional.

I can't blame purists for thinking that way, though. More generally, our brain modifies the sound that we perceive based on what we know about it, and understanding this is important to becoming a good sound designer - accepting that even you can't escape it, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable you are (quite the contrary). Unfortunately, most people don't accept it, and the idea that digital synthesis inevitably yields repetitive and boring sounds is ingrained in people's minds (especially the author's mind, it seems).

And then there's the idea that digital restricts your creativity because of... presets? In the 80's, maybe. But today? I suppose there are some people who pick a popular preset and don't even bother tweaking it, but these people would make shitty music whatsoever. Creative people will create creative sounds, and they will have a lot more creative freedom and unexplored territory on digital media. But go ahead and spread the idea that analog synths make sound with magically better properties - I'll be working on the actual unexplored territory in the meantime.