It is refreshing to see this post. As someone who has tried, and not really taken to, all three of those frameworks I sympathize.
Stick with what works for you. Shipping code on your own terms is the end goal. The customer viewing the page does not care one iota what framework you are using.
Moot's customers are not the people viewing the discussions; their customer is the developer integrating their code into a website. A framework might be important to them.
If their argument was "We didn't like any of the frameworks so we built moot without one" that'd be great, but they're making the case that all developers would be better off without, and that's pretty damn dubious.
I fail to see where the article proselytized against JS frameworks for anyone. They highlighted their specific needs and explained why each of the big 3 JS frameworks didn't fill that need. Can you point out where I missed this "all developers would be better off without..." tone?
My thoughts exactly. Moot's specific use case militates strongly against any of the frameworks discussed in the linked article, but it's specious to infer from that that frameworks are never of value, and especially questionable to do so in an article whose trailing "Read next" link points to an article about the framework Moot themselves invented.
Stick with what works for you. Shipping code on your own terms is the end goal. The customer viewing the page does not care one iota what framework you are using.