But what arguments? His answer to "why classes at all" is that higher-level languages are good because they reduce complexity. OK. But then he takes for granted that his class-based approach is what does this. That's not an argument, that's assuming your conclusion.

The rest of the post says that because a committee has been arguing for 10 years, we're overdue for just adding something. That hardly follows. Sometimes adding "something" for the sake of it fucks things up. First do no harm?

Personally I'm glad that "luddites" have blocked these attempts to "fix" arguably the most important language in the world by making it be more like Java. As the OP points out, while the committee has been arguing, "JS has gone from being important to being critical to the construction of large systems", i.e. succeeding massively.

(Not that I don't empathize with how frustrating it must be to have a committee block what you think are all the good ideas.)