Firstly you insinuate that the author is requiring people to interact as they do - this evidently is not the case, a suggestion has even been made on one of many ways to behave differently.
Secondly the "I seem to be getting along fine without it" statement pointlessly hampers progress. There is no basis or reasoning for this, instead there is a decision - whimsical by the looks of it - to not use it. You could say that you don't anticipate the gains of the system to be worth the transition cost, or you could actually try it and have some useful criticism, or any number of other things.
Thirdly, the linked page doesn't ever mention the 'minimal' your parent introduces. Minimal implies sufficiency (least sufficient, but sufficient none the less), the Alacritty page states simple - which does not.
I find the final comment hilarious. You have just denounced a tool based on an implementation triviality (which can be easily bypassed) and choose to summarise with a statement as undoubtedly false as it is trite. Did you read the page?
