I'm not in a position to judge what is right or wrong, but I feel like he could have done better than form an opinion on the tool based on the first sentence of the website, and then provided no comments on the actual tool itself.
He can write whatever he wants. Would benefit him a lot though to not be put off by the first 5 words of anything, and instead have patience to form a well rounded opinion of whatever he's looking at.
I can not chime in with an opinion on the functionality of Mozart.js. I can only compare the first-looks of the docs to my experience with VueJS and Angular when I was a complete beginner to frontend development.
The docs of this do not appeal to me. First of, I need some sort of Hello World, to understand the basic structure of an application written with Mozart.js. I have that both in Vue and in Angular. I am a simple being, I manage to do 'Hello World', and I promptly get excited.
Then I would want something that demonstrates handling User-Input (i.e. dynamic data and databinding between JS and HTML). How do I react to a button? Again, I am a simple being. I see things happen, and I promptly clap my hands with joy.
There is only one concrete full example I have found on the introduction page[0], and it doesn't seem to work for me (clicking the button does not produce a report). On top of that, the example is written in CoffeScript, and I have never in my life read code in CoffeeScript.
The rest of the code snippets that are presented in the docs are just fluff to me. I cannot read it, I do not understand the context, and I am not compelled to dive deeper into it. Disclaimer: I am dumb as a stack of hay, reading code is hard for me and I need stuff to be spelled out for me.
TL;DR
I cannot comment on the tool, since the first look provided by the docs does not inspire me to try the tool.
