> While I don’t doubt that the author has good reason for their opinion, the reason is handwaved here, no?

I came to the comments hoping to get more explanation. I was waiting for the full explanation of the technical debt but then the article just came to an abrupt end.

I wonder if the article started as a short history and explanation of differences, but then the dramatic headline was chosen to drive more clicks? The article could have been interesting by itself without setting up the “mountain of technical debt” claim in the headline.