Which would be a perspective more people might take if the author actually presented it as a technology demo rather than as fit for some purpose. Instead they say "We are going to be creating a product landing page which will utilize 3D models and particle effects to take product showcasing to a whole new level." This isn't just dismissiveness, this is a response to how the material is presented.

I agree it's an interesting bit of tech, but I also agree that it's not a method I'd use or suggest to showcase a real product in most cases.

I’m with you 1000%.

I’ll also say that I’ve spent the last few months of my life working on a web project that would satisfy the most anti-JS zealots around here, but with a DX I prefer (all built in TypeScript, with Preact and CSS-in-JS).

This is possible because I selected, contributed to, and developed from scratch tooling to improve the product of the original tooling (Hyperscript, React, styled-components etc).

But I’ve poured so much of my heart into the project that I’m pretty sure I won’t bother sharing it here, even though I’m quite proud of the tech aspects, because I can already anticipate being inundated with criticism for even preferring that DX, even though it has no impact on anyone but me (or anyone who elects to use the tools I’ve used or the many I plan to open source after launch).

It’s a pretty disappointing feeling nonetheless. HN has routinely shown me that there are people who would rather I share their priorities than have my own, even if it doesn’t affect anyone else in any way.

It's more of a hacker/MBA community.

For more pure hacker forums, you'd be looking, what, Hackaday? Is that still relevant?

It's worth remembering that for every dismissive comment, there are thousands of people that tacitly approve.

Create whatever you want but don't call it a 3D product landing page. It's for selling a product.

This