The idea that using underpowered computer makes you write some faster or better software etc. is just silly. Especially that all the really fast and well known projects in last few years tend to come from Rust people, with their super heavy compiler that has no respect for RAM and storage usage.
It's by definition always better to have a faster box than slower one. You want to see how it works on much slower boxes? Run it with a CPU quota or in a VM. People don't do it, not because they can't, or because they have too fast computers, but because they have other priorities.
I will admit that I would rather someone with more experience commented on this rather than me.
That said, I disagree on general principle.
When you are restrained ( sometimes severely restrained ) by the environment, the net result is that you use resources a lot more efficiently. I absolutely get that we are kinda spoiled now with crazy hardware that is basically a supercomputer from not so long ago and it is hard to let that convenience and power go, but that lends to the bloated software landscape we have today that manages to overuse just about every resource available.
With limited power, you are effectively forced to write better. It is not completely unlike training with weights. It is not silly. It produces real results.
Hmm. Like with most things, there are benefits and drawbacks to this approach, but outright dismissal as 'LARP' is, at best, uncharitable. Are you sure you cannot come up with at least one good practical reason?