Laced within the influx of Deno articles are the Deno detractors. This article offers the counterpoint to those detractors: new tech is not a distraction, it's a necessity.
In evolution, not every new mutation sticks: some are disadvantageous and, due to natural selection, get culled from the gene pool. A select few traits, however, are advantageous. These traits propagate and become commonplace for that animal. It takes a whole lot of permutations before the right traits are found.
Tech evolution is the same way. Detractors argue that Deno is the "next shiny thing" in tech and cite many reasons why they would never use Deno. I think some of these criticism are correct—I don't understand how Deno imports can be more secure than node without an integrity SHA and I don't like that there's no obvious way to manage indirect dependencies.
I'm not knocking articles that are critical of Deno's implementation details. These articles are actually incredibly important to determining if Deno is truly viable! But I will be a little harsher on articles that say the ecosystem is fine as-is and that attempts like Deno shouldn't even be made. Articles that discourage experimentation altogether are unhelpful for advancing tech.
Any issues with Deno will either be worked out or Deno will fall by the wayside. The only way we figure it out, however, is by trying. So whether or not you want to be on the "bleeding edge" of new tech attempts, just remember that the only reason you're not coding in Fortran right now is because some developers put in the time to explore, and fail with, all sorts of new tech.