Counter point: I've seen projects that were blowing their budgets/deadlines due to:
- people not being familiar w/ the chosen framework and being unable to figure out how to accomplish some of the deliverables
- wrong framework for the job
- analysis paralysis figuring out which frameworks to use
- using the framework wrong and then drowning in code debt
The point of the article, I think, is that there's a tangible difference in performance between _similar_ frameworks, but which isn't often considered when choosing frameworks.
You'll often see developers say that they prioritize developer experience over things like runtime characteristics of a framework and there's a lot of handwaving about "maintainability". This despite there being extremely complex apps out in the wild written in obscure frameworks (e.g. lichess uses mithril.js and the code looks just fine).
There's clearly a disconnect somewhere when, for example, facebook announces a homepage redesign using the latest and greatest tools and immediately people start complaining about its performance.
I would not buy a slightly wobbly table from a carpenter that wants to use a more ergonomic hammer, over a not wobbly table from a carpenter that uses a cheap hammer. Similarly, I think what the article illustrates is that a developer should also act like a craftsman and critically think about the effectiveness of their tools in terms of end results, rather than blindly accepting tool marketing/status quo and disregarding the quality of the end product.