That's what I'm reacting to, and I still disagree. People should have an eye on what getting traction would require, even if only a tiny fraction of language designers can make it.
However even more importantly - if you're going to create a language, it needs to be the ultimate language in your own eyes. You can't leave off novel features that you have experience in because it doesn't have mass appeal or has tooling issues. You need to create the best language you possibly can if you want to compete with others trying to create the best language. Hamstringing your enjoyment of the language by going in a direction you don't like because it has more apparently mass market appeal isn't any more likely to be successful, and it certainly isn't going to be enjoyable enough for you to slog through the tiny complexities.
While there is a tiny chance that your language becomes the next big thing, it probably won't. That means you need to make the language you want to make and hope it succeeds, not make the language that 'will succeed' but you don't want to make.
I agree with you so far as it can't be a language you don't want to make. I don't think this article describes that, but a more modest set of constraints. Elsewhere, the author mentions Julia as a positive inspiration.
I think the idea of compromise depends on the idea you're trying to bring into the world. You can't compromise your core idea, but you can compromise on other things. I guess I'm making assumptions about what the author is compromising that I'm not entitled to. Perhaps you know that I'm wrong.