It's a reaction to how so many new websites are just Wix or Squarespace templates despite all of the new capabilities our browsers have gained; they appreciate how much more accessible web development has become while bemoaning the cost to creativity and expression that came with it.

The article links to examples like https://lynnandtonic.com/archive/2019/ or https://optical.toys/ (I personally am quite fond of https://acko.net/) which, though their site content could be expressed with templates someone else built, it's conveyed in a more interesting or more useful way because of the thought and care put into effectuating the intended design as an interactive work.

I think one weakness of the article is that it doesn't draw upon the rich history of how creative coding has enriched everyone's coding experience. Cracktros turned into demos, demos turned into the demoscene and also into the early video game industry. Early Ruby and Arduino communities, flush with artists, became testbeds for all manner of intersection between art and software while also pushing the boundaries of what the tools were capable of. But ultimately, they're right. A handcrafted site making full use of browser features is just not something you see very much anymore.

Of course, it's not everyone's cup of tea. I'm not surprised about the dismissals elsewhere in this thread. Some folks just want to get their work done, and that's fine too.

Basically people should do more digital art that involves "coding" where coding means "using HTML, CSS, SVG animation etc" rather than necessarily software development.