More recently, I've contributed to a number of open source projects that have live chat meetings on IRC. We kept logs of those meetings, but live chat is totally the point.
Can't do that in voice chat.
In the usual case of IRC channels the contributors are in the minority and so it can take the form of a voyeuristic learning experience for the passive bystanders - and very highly educational most of the time.
As for chat backlogs, your client can log communications while you are online. Some people find that more desirable since they always know who they are speaking to. That is especially important since anyone can join an open channel at any time. If something that you found interesting came up on a channel you frequented, but while you were not in the channel, someone would copy it from their scrollback buffer for you (often without your even asking).
That being said, I doubt those two criteria define the target audience. As the author notes, IRC is great because its simplicity offers a great deal of flexibility. Anyone could make an IRC client or bot with minimal effort. Even for those who do not write software, it is advantagous. There were many IRC clients because of that, meaning one could choose a client that reflects their needs and tastes. The problem is that most people want something that is easier to use, and for most people that means they don't want to deal with choosing a client nor do they want to deal with setting up their client (notably, selecting a server).
You're not the audience for it then. But don't think that you represent everyone. Ya don't.
Not necessarily.
An SMS, sure. Because that's more of a message than a chat.
IRC, that's strictly chat and that doesn't have to persist. I can duck into and out of it as I wish.