This reminds me of the whole "replace" debacle [1] a couple weeks back, where the power nerds jumped all someone who wrote a bit of code to simplify common tasks. It's hard to understand how some people think flexing their arcane knowledge in everyone's face makes them look good. They trash efforts to make software more accessible and maintainable so they can pretend to be king of a tiny hill.
1) It is not a command that someone "uses", it's a script written by a programmer to be run for a business task or an end user quite likely may not "use Unix" (by your definition) ever.
2) The script goal most likely is not to make Unix work for you - it was originally written to make Unix do task X for you; but the goal/question in the OP is how to make that program more maintainable. Maintainability is an important goal, and to achieve that it's definitely acceptable to mutilate the way you usually do one-off tasks manualy.
3) The shell script is written for non-shell-script users - it's quite likely some glue for a system where 99.9% is in other languages, and the maintenance guys will specialize in those languages, and may not "use Unix" in their daily tasks at all. It's very common and reasonable to write all your code on a Win or Mac computer and then have it deployed to some linux server; and most companies currently do have separate ops teams (which would "use Unix" every day) and developer teams, which might "use Unix" once a month or less, even if the end binaries run on Unix.
No, the source of Unix nerd's retort is the realization that a small set of simple, standardized and very sharp tools performs better over time than an ever-increasing set of intuitive tools to suit a narrow use case. This is not to disparage anyone for writing something like that replace project. You certainly don't deserve scorn for that, and if that tool finds a healthy place in your utility belt then all the better.
However if you do a lot of work with text files on unix then I think inevitably you will reach a tipping point where it is in fact easier to learn and remember a limited set of commands and flags than it is to remember the ideal mountain of simpler commands that do all the things you regularly do in a more beginner-friendly fashion. If you want to argue against "arcane" unix tools being better you have to confront this argument head-on without assuming the proponent is an insecure, anti-social neckbeard out to prove his own superiority.
This may have been true(r) twenty or thirty years ago, but in a contemporary Unix installation, it is not true at all.
The set of tools is often NOT small (there are thousands of them); they are NOT simple (two examples: 1. the ls man page and the huge number of options it takes; 2. shell quoting rules); they are NOT standardized (I regularly run into incompatibilities between BSD-derived and GNU tools, for example, the -E option for grep); and they are NOT sharp.
In summary, the whole "small tools that one thing only, but that do that one thing well" thing is a stupid, outdated mantra that may have made more sense many years ago, but not anymore. For some reason, people keep on blindly believing it even though it bears no relation to the reality of modern Unix programming.
Reading man-pages does do a lot for you. And in my experience, I don't spend a lot of time while on the same engagement/project/whatever writing shell code across BSD/solaris/GNU-linux/etc.
And honestly, if you can write a sophisticated sed substitution for BSD without reading the man page, is there really THAT big of a barrier lying between you and writing the same thing in GNU/Linux, or non-POSIX-compliant sed, or whatever else? You read the man page for 10 seconds and find the flag that means what you want to use. If it's different, you explore.
This is totally not a rant at you, and I sincerely hope you don't take it that way - I just haven't found myself utterly foiled by the differences between say, RHEL v SUSE v BSD recently. There are differences, but hell - there are differences between versions of languages, between terminal emulators (scripts that work in bash but not in zsh and vice versa), etc.
I take issue with the attitude that the way these tools are used, with their billion cryptic parameters, is some flawless pinnacle of achievement.
Some people have put a lot of effort into memorizing Unix switches already--but the difficulty doesn't mean that work was meaningful. Unfortunately, to justify their sunk cost, a subset of those individuals tout their knowledge as something by which the rest of us should be impressed. In fact, this comment thread is littered with disdain for peers who dare to tread on their domain with "human-readable names" and "documentation".
In the root article, the author simply suggests that it is more maintainable to use full names for arguments because the code is then self-documenting. It's like using completeVariableNames instead of sht_y1s. Actual comments would suffice, but most code (unfortunately) isn't commented or the comments are done badly.
If a programmer is solo, whatever. Go nuts. Use shortcuts; don't comment. Hard-code paths in your scripts and write 600-line functions. A coder only has herself to blame for the problems she caused.
However, when programming with a group there will always be coworkers that can start being productive sooner (without interrupting you) if things are named and described in plain English and do exactly what it looks like they do.
Script switches are not a remotely interesting problem. Which style you use is a meaningless debate--until you factor in time. Time to debug. Time to look up documentation. Time to memorize. Time is a truly scarce resource, and there exists a better way than rote memorization: making code work in an obvious way. Actively choosing not to employ this idea steals time from others and those of us that lose minutes so a shortcutting programmer can save seconds of typing don't appreciate it.
That said, it's up to one's discretion about what "obvious" means. But nobody should try to argue that making things more readable is inherently bad.