I think a couple of the criticisms are valid - mostly the criticism of dependency inversion. But overall I think the article (if we were to take it seriously)

I think a couple of the criticisms are valid - mostly the criticism of dependency inversion. But overall I think the article (if we were to take it seriously) basically represents a nihilistic point of view that says "there's no point trying to have principles - code is either subjectively good or it isn't". I'm as sympathetic to heterodox criticism as anyone, but this desire to throw away any received wisdom at all definitely seems misguided to me. (For what it's worth, I think the single responsibility principle and the open closed principle are particularly valuable. I'm open to persuasion on the others)