For what it's worth, I wasn't going to respond, but the more I read back this reply, the more it chafes—maybe because I've bristled about similar replies in the past and I've tried many times to write a blog post about what I see happening here. It reminds me of a different but commonplace phenomenon that has led to the case where I no longer bother filing bugs against projects who host their bugtracker on GitHub because of the high-ish likelihood that it will get a reply in the form of a comment responding solely to an imagined subtext in my message—where the subtext is that my bug report is actually a support request. I attribute this to the bugtrackers in many projects being run so poorly that folks are even allowed to file support requests there (which is frustratingly common on GitHub) and that maybe because the reply originates from someone who lives in a world where all communication happens through subtext.

So intentional snarkiness or not, there's something in your comment that just doesn't comport with mine and the message in it. If I were directly addressing the author of this tool and, say, asking that it be changed or repackaged to solve some problem for me, then your reply would be on-target. But I'm not even using this extension, and that's not what my comment was. It was not a support request. Besides what I wrote, there was no subtext to be found, but if a person insisted on trying to root out some latent meaning from the words, then let it have been an observation about current approaches to modularity or the principle of least authority or the principle of least power.

https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html