Isn't the entire argument about the current (or maybe "immediately foreseeable") state of tooling? We don't really care one way or the other, in a philosophical sense. What works?
When the tools aren't good enough, we can either toss up our hands and say "I guess it's always going to be like this!", or we can get to work and make better tools.
This is an argument about how to use current tools. TFA doesn't argue that mono will be great once we work really hard. It argues that mono is great now. Thread parent has a specific objection to that argument. You don't reasonably counter that objection with statements about morality.
- The article spoke about points that were largely independent of the current or future state of tooling. Instead, it focused on fundamental issues with mono- vs poly-repo systems. Most directly, being forced to fix migrations and incompatibilities immediately rather than letting versions skew.
If you want to batter someone for not arguing for or against the points in the article, you can do it with the comment I was replying to, or with your own comment just now.