There's a place for pushing strong philosophical points. But that's not what this comment is. This comment is practical advice, and I think it misses the point.

"Try to avoid relying on proprietary software" is strong. "Avoid any option that exists to run software you think you need" feels out of touch, especially when it says "I use Mac for X and Y" - which is barely practical: having a whole extra, expensive computer that's not maintained forever is quite the costly workaround for an arbitrary stance like "don't use Wine" that they don't motivate so much in the end (there's no practical explanation in that comment for avoiding VMs or Wine - they say maintenance, but I don't see what's hard to maintain in running Wine).

The comment argues "The good news. Every bit invested in high quality API/ABI on Linux pays off.". I do agree. I don't know about high quality, and it hurts a bit to say it, but it so happens that Windows might be the only stable API/ABI on Linux, with Wine being a completely libre reimplementation of it. If you need to write a program that you are reasonably sure will run on any Linux in 20 years without intervention, Wine might be your best bet (with AppImage probably your second best bet). What would be the fundamental (philosophical, practical, technical) reason to avoid targeting Wine? What makes winelib so different from other libraries such that you should avoid it? Genuinely curious. What real alternative is there? Qt and Gtk break the API each major version and even the GNU libc doesn't guarantee ABI stability. The only reasonable alternative is "maintained free software" (and that's what I happen to rely on).

FWIW, I have no stake in this: I use only free software, I mostly don't use Wine nor contribute to it, and I wish I were wrong.