[raspo]

I think the author was referring about the specific use-case of building a website using static file generators.

In that context I 100% agree with him that if you want to sprinkle some interactivity while keeping your content "portable" and be able to move to the next "CMS" of the future, sticking with web components is a much wiser choice, rather than embracing whatever fancy convenient feature your tool provides (like Astro's islands).

(It is good advice and a well written article btw, thank you for sharing)

I don't think he was suggesting to build your next SPA entirely with web components..

[jakelazaroff]

Author here — yes, this is exactly correct (and thank you for the kind words). I think the maintenance cost of dependencies is important to consider, and with web components we have a "native" solution for encapsulating HTML, CSS and JS. That doesn't mean that every project needs to have that as its top priority! Sometimes development velocity/shared patterns/ease of finding other developers is more important, and that's perfectly fine.