My objection is that the author is quite clearly describing this as a bottom-up, small scale approach. Criticizing it as an inadequate approach for something much larger is unwarranted, as nowhere was the claim made that this scales up infinitely.
What is gained? No build step, as the article also clearly mentions. Your alternative approach goes against the goal of the author. Which is to not have a tool chain. "You can also do this by installing these 17 tools and 30 dependencies" is quite missing the point.
I don't disagree that it's small scale approach, it's just the language of "bottom up" and "scaling gracefully" that I disagree with. The setup in the article will work only at very small scales, and then you'll probably have to rewrite most of it. The setup I provided works at very small scales as well (arguably better), but can be progressively updated as needed (but only as needed - for example, there's no JSX support for now, but it could be added later if it became necessary).
And in a situation like this, I don't know that I understand the value in avoiding a build step simply for the sake of being able to say you don't have one. This isn't one of those situations where you're saving time by removing the build step because it's not actually building anything here, just rewriting a few paths and adding essentially the same import map. It's probably even quicker overall because it does the reload for you.
Likewise, you're overstating what tools are actually necessary here. It's not "17 tools and 30 dependencies", it's two: one (NPM) to manage dependencies, and the other (vite) to provide the dev server and set the imports up correctly. Everything apart from that is up to you to install as you wish.
What is gained? No build step, as the article also clearly mentions. Your alternative approach goes against the goal of the author. Which is to not have a tool chain. "You can also do this by installing these 17 tools and 30 dependencies" is quite missing the point.