I don't necessarily disagree with your take but I think you should be making substantive counter-arguments to what the author wrote. Your post is essentially just attacking the author and of little substance in itself.
> They eat up all the memory you have and still ask for more. They constantly crash and has no value over a native desktop application what so ever - well, perhaps with the only exception that now a 2 year old baby can make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse.
I'm kind of a curmudgeon about Electron apps, and I'm still reading that and going, "I can't think of a single time I've had an Electron app crash on me, what kind of genius two-year-olds are out there developing in React Native, and what kind of juvenile complaint is 'make something shiny that you can click on with your mouse' (as opposed to native desktop apps, which as we all know are matte black and only take keyboard input). Also, for Strunk & White's sake, 'whatsoever' is one word, and 'they' goes with the verb 'have', not 'has.'"
And the whole article is like this. He goes on to complain about PHP templating systems because PHP itself is a templating language, and sure, yes, argument to be made there! Just…not this argument. Most PHP templating systems compile their templates to pure PHP, so if anything is making "the application load four times as slow" it is not that. Then he goes on to tell us "all web servers has a build in router" -- there are either two or three syntax errors in that seven-word sentence, depending on whether you count "build in" for "built-in" as one or two -- and rails against how web frameworks are eschewing web servers' built-in routers (by which we mean…URL requests?) and instead insisting on implementing the revolutionary new (checks notes) front controller pattern. Yes, you're right, web development would be so much easier without that, wouldn't it? Also, while we're here, let's talk about line numbers. Why aren't we still using line numbers? Named functions are for wussies. In my day, we used GOTO both ways uphill in the snow and we liked it!
Wait, sorry. Where was I?
Anyway, it's actually pretty hard to make "substantive counter-arguments". The article is badly argued and badly written. I would not normally be quite so much of a jerk about the numerous syntax errors, except that this ends with a suggestion that people, you know, pay for this writing. I don't expect perfection (God knows I make tpyos all the time), but the closing paragraph starts with a sentence that literally has no verb. If your entire thesis is "IT people need to do better," well: engineer, heal thyself.
Are you really bashing the author for imperfect English? The about page clearly mentions that they are not a native speaker of the language, and even apologises for any imperfections in their writing as a result thereof [1].
I strongly agree with your parent comment that attacking the author for presenting their strong views in an area is unnecessary. Make arguments against what they wrote, not who they are.
A little kindness also goes a long way. What the hell is this obsession with hammering everyone down with unwarranted negativity on this forum.
However, when you rather archly tell me
> Make arguments against what they wrote, not who they are.
I will respond: I did. The vast majority of my arguments were against what they wrote. I took a couple pot shots at how they wrote it. I don't know who they are, and certainly didn't argue against that either way.
> A little kindness also goes a long way.
Does that apply only to critics of the article and not the article itself? Because I don't think you can call the author's tone "kind" by any measure.
FWIW, while I don't condone it, I do think that any non-native speaker should take such criticism as a compliment. It's a sign that they're good enough to pass for native; if they were clearly struggling to write passable English, the reactions would likely be more polite with helpful pointers.
You're also right in your second paragraph, though -- the article didn't read to me like "this is someone who isn't fluent in English," it read like "this is someone who's fluent in English but tossed this article off quickly, made careless mistakes, and didn't bother to make a proofreading pass."
I'm of the opinion that anyone now who calls PHP a "template engine" hasn't actually looked at it since 2001.
The lack of even acknowledging these things is what really discredits the author in my book.