The only thing I know about “good system design” is that it doesn’t exist in the abstract. Asking whether an architecture is good or bad is the wrong question. The real question is: Is it fit for purpose? Does it help you achieve what you actually need to achieve?
I could nitpick individual points in the article, but that misses the bigger issue: the premise is off.
Don’t chase generic advice about good or bad design. First understand your requirements, then design a system that meets them.
... that is how you achieve a good design (for the time being).
This used to be (and still is in some circles) a hot topic.
.net had the benefit of coning second and fixed a lot of java's design issues. It really use a better java.
Of course in the days of JavaScript desktop apps and python, people just don't need to pay attention to perf as much for better or worse.
I like long-form writing. However, it takes a lot of effort. So, I end up not writing often.
It is a hot topic especially among polyglots who have to deal with the same word meaning different in different languages.