No.
If you’re using object literals for required parameters you are doing it wrong.
Maybe provide an options object, but otherwise if your function is so unwieldy as to require named parameters in JavaScript, refactor your function.
If you want to curry a function but the curry target is in an options object, refactor your function.
Or... horror of horrors write another wrapper function with a different signature.
As for OP’s core argument: No.
I use currying all the time in “idiomatic” JavaScript. The author is confused because most people who write JavaScript don’t write it idiomaticallly. ES6 and Babel have encouraged JS programmers to do whatever the f* they want to, but that’s their problem. I write plain, simple JavaScript, and currying is one of the (very few) powerful tools in my tool bag. If you are writing JS in a way that prevents currying you've thrown the baby out with the bath water.
The whole point of idiomatic JavaScript is that you have closures, prototypes, currying, callbacks, and not much else. Code is understandable because you know it’s not using anything more than those simple control structures. You don’t use promises. You don’t use classes. You don’t use any declarative control structures at all. Anything else is bastard “modern” JavaScript, aka IO.js, aka Not JavaScript.
If any of the words: “closure”, “prototype”, “currying” cause you some anxiety, I’m sorry you’re not a JavaScript programmer. You’re not “in” any real programming language at all, you’re using a bizarre Ruby subset on top of a JS VM without understanding what you’re doing. And you’re getting the worst of both worlds.