Stick around in any programming ecosystem long enough, and you live long enough to see strategy, taste, and "discovery" come full circle. We had make, then package.json "scripts," then grunt, then gulp, then the trend shifted back towards package.json "scripts." (Note: Using "scripts" to differentiate the package.json property versus the generic word use)

I like that the author isn't being authoritative, but there could be some additional due diligence. I ran the make-is-faster loose benchmark via PNPM and runtime was 0m0.022s for make and 0m0.012s for PNPM. If I care about those 10ms, PNPM is my horse. Yarn is a glacier compared to PNPM.

Another thing I would've liked to see comment on is the automatic pre and post paradigm that package.json "scripts" affords. The big three package managers all support pre and post, and it makes arranging "scripts" a breeze, it breaks down dependent steps into separate console output, and is generally easy to organize imho.

All in all a nice write up for folks who might not really like package.json "scripts" to begin with, or for those who'd rather not gain more granular insight into how "scripts" works, but I don't see this being the nail in the coffin case against them.