Multiple misunderstandings here. Most importantly the author seems to have misunderstood the quote from Wikipedia defining an anti-pattern. The definition said an anti-pattern is a commonly seen solution which is net detrimental AND for which a known net-positive solution exists.
But it’s important to note that anti-patterns are still patterns, ie, they are commonly seen solutions. They just happen to be poor ones. But your innovative solution, whether it’s good or bad, can’t be an anti-pattern, no more than it can be a pattern. Because it’s new. No one else is using it. It’s not a pattern yet.
Likewise the author seems to have missed the AND part, and spends a good deal of time ranting that just because a solution exists doesn’t mean any other solution is an anti-pattern... well, yes, exactly!
But it’s important to note that anti-patterns are still patterns, ie, they are commonly seen solutions. They just happen to be poor ones. But your innovative solution, whether it’s good or bad, can’t be an anti-pattern, no more than it can be a pattern. Because it’s new. No one else is using it. It’s not a pattern yet.
Likewise the author seems to have missed the AND part, and spends a good deal of time ranting that just because a solution exists doesn’t mean any other solution is an anti-pattern... well, yes, exactly!