I don't think the answer is one or the other at all like the blog post is implying. I think his previous conclusion of a threshold makes more sense. Perhaps though they have chosen the wrong abstractions and hence the confusion
With "cleverely abstracted" code, I cannot do that. Because there are no noodles any more. There are small pieces of noodles, all in different sizes, spread out over 200 plates, that reside on 140 tables in 40 different rooms, some of which are in another building. And there are now 20 types of sauce, and 14 types of parmesan, but those are not neatly separated, but spread evenly all over everything, and so it all tastes awful. And each individual plate still manages to be spaghetti.
Okay, yes, I may have strechted out the food-analogy a bit.
But that's pretty much how I feel when digging through over-engineered codebases.
And some guy banged it out over the weekend, which means he's a rock star.
One notable difference is that now the GOTOs are implicit and only in your head, so it's notably even harder to comprehend than the old style of spaghetti.
Also often adds in some code hidden in comments ('annotations'), some squirreled away in complex configuration files, and some other code where what actually gets executed depends on concatenated string variables, and maybe for good measure some places where which code gets executed (and how) implicitly depends on the filepath it is under, and now we have a mess even a debugger can't help with.
It's nice to see more people finally getting disillusioned with these trends.
That's because abstraction is a myth perpetuated by the likes of Sussman (ie academics that never wrote real code) and in reality the only thing that matters is PSPACE ⊆ EXPTIME.