From an architecture standpoint I'd agree that most of the author's points are lamentable - if indeed there are people that call themselves architects who exhibit those traits.

But I'd also say that several aren't really valid criticisms - (class vs functions, tail-call optimization, trouble with git reset, ...) as they don't really seem to be aspects/tasks that I would expect from an architect.

They look more like things that overblown software developers might do.

And on that last point "written software that people enjoy using" - I don't think that is a good qualification for being an architect. There are plenty of people who can write software that end users love - but that is a total shitshow behind the browser.