Methinks we have differing definitions of "hard to read" because for me those daisy chained methods, callbacks, and painfully cryptic arrow functions are many times harder to read and maintain than a simple for loop.
If a for loop -- one of the most basic structures in programming -- is "hard to read" or "prone to cause bugs" I question one's ability to program in the first place.
And we're not talking micro-optimizations when you get up into the hudred+ record range, where tripling or more the memory footprint and performing two to ten times the code needed to do the job. You want to know why chrome tabs take up so much memory? Trying to run garbage code like the article had in it! It's not "a byte of memory" when you have pointers to objects PRETENDING to be variables, the overhead of dynamic variable types, the overhead of the stack, far calls, and the like, all doubling or more the memory footprint and execution time!
I've probably been in this world as long if not longer than you. I cut my teeth on machine language, my first HLL was Pascal, and I spent a decade working in Ada. Good decade of playing with this stuff as a kid, another decades of experience before web technologies even became relevant. 20+ years of working with web tech... and if I've learned anything the people who complain about "micro-optimizations' are just looking for lame excuses to justify bad practices.
Hence trying to say time wasting code wasting wrecks like these garbage array methods -- again see their first example -- are good, or better, or easier is outright delusional.
Though as I said at the very start, it seems we have different definitions of words like "Easy".