Nice article and I agree with most of it - it's very hard to find a framework that strikes a good balance between lean and full-featured. But I don't think the answer is writing everything yourself, either. Rolling your own framework is a lot of work and you're not even guaranteed to wind up with something better than what's out there. Some people believe jQuery is bloated and create their own framework with a mix-and-match from microjs.com. Great! But it's super painful to work with, because at some point you realize "oh, i need to deep-copy this object" or "this should slide down - oh wait" and suddenly you're re-inventing wheels all over the place. With your own subtle browser bugs, Unicode issues, and keyboard problems. Ugh. Especially when you're going to replace things like socket.io, mentioned in the article.

But I'm on board with the general concept here and I'm not sold on Ember or Angular - they don't seem to speed up development or prevent bugs as much as they should, per kb downloaded to the client. Sometimes all you need is plain-old jQuery code, with a well thought out and structured API.

It seemed like most of his slides came down to the old typed/untyped flame war. Yes, in Scala you can look at your objects in an IDE and be told what type they are, in Ruby you can't. Some organizations and people need that, some don't. And yes, it's easier to optimize typed languages. Some applications need that extra speed, most don't.

I'm happy he found a language he enjoys working with, but I doubt this will change anyone's mind...

I just use different browsers. Chrome for the personal one, Firefox for the work one. Very easy, just Cmd+Tab between them, can always stay signed in, and no confusion!