That said, please consider the community guidelines:
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."
"Tabs vs spaces. A clear winner in productivity"
"Common programming paradigm somehow useless - Says this person"
And on and on. It's the mild version of shock journalism. It reaches exposure here, not because of the intellectual merit, but the contentious nature. Maybe not narcissistic, but certainly attention seeking.
Is not name calling?
I did not find anything narcissistic in the OP's post. It is a controversial topic but nothing about it came off as narcissistic.
That said, and this might be an age thing, I'm not sure. When I see these computer science concepts and constructs that were figured out half a decade ago or more, which have their particular usefulness and limitations. It is hard for me to believe intellectual honesty motivating those kinds of posts.
It's the same recipe. Take something trivial, well understood, and write a post with a title that suggests something highly opinionated, and possibly contrary to what the reader might have experienced themselves. Then explain how in some use case, it doesn't fit very well. Then, maybe for the kicks of it, walk back on the original "click-baity" statement that got people to read it to begin with. And wrap it up as if there some deeper or more profound knowledge to be gained.
I will admit, I haven't read the article, because my bullshit detector started ringing. When you've seen a hundred of these, you don't need to read one more. But I'll take a quick look now, for the sake of it. Yes, pretty much the same recipe as I mentioned. Perhaps slightly less pointless than I had expected.