This isn't a very good article IMHO. I think I agree (strongly) with what it's trying to say, but as it's written, it just isn't it.
Wrappers and VMs and bytecodes and runtimes are bad: they make life easier but they are less efficient and make issues harder to troubleshoot.
Runtimes/"VMs" like the JVM also allow nice things like stack traces. I don't know about the author but I much prefer looking at a stack trace over "segmentation fault (core dumped)". Having a runtime opens new possibilities for concurrency and parallelism too.
The COSMIC desktop looks like GNOME, works like GNOME Shell, but it's smaller and faster and more customisable because it's native Rust code.
This just doesn't make any sense. COSMIC is more configurable because it wants to be, this has absolutely nothing to do with Rust vs Javascript.
Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson knew this. That's why Research Unix evolved into Plan 9, which puts way more stuff through the filesystem to remove whole types of API. Everything's in a container all the time, the filesystem abstracts the network and the GUI and more.
And here the author just contradicts themselves. So wrappers, runtimes and VMs are bad, except when it's Ken Thompson doing it in which case adding containers and a language runtime into a kernel is a great idea actually?
Lastly, I didn't address the efficiency arguments in the quotes because it's mostly just true... but I do think it requires some more careful consideration than "JS bad Rust good". Consider this unscientific sample of different apps on my PC and how much of my (expensive!) RAM they use:
- Spotify (Electron): 1G
- Ghostty (Zig/GTK): 235M
- Decibels (Typescript/GTK): 140M
- Anyrun (Rust/GTK): 110M
Note that Electron, and only Electron, is a supermassive black hole of bloat. Whatever is going on here, it's not Javascript.