It's worth keeping in mind that the primary audience that the article discusses is not folks at your skill level.
By far one of the most common errors I see as a CS instructor is aggressive over-reliance on global state. Not global methods, but state. However, usually what causes the student to reach for global state is the fact that it can be accessed from a static method like main; In lieu of figuring out how to structure a class, they reach for the easier "just make the variable static" approach. Allowing the initialization sequence to call main on an instance via the class's zero-arg constructor seems like it would address the point.
I agree that this is a good way to simplify Java. I just don’t want newbie Java programmers told that static methods are bad because that is our only way to express pure functions and we need them to learn to default to immutable data and minimizing stateful objects.
That's a fair long term view, and a sense for this type of nuanced choice is one of the marks of a good programmer. Not all students have the experience to judge the tradeoff, and so my goal as an educator is to default them to the safer of the two options. In this example, it's usually trivial to just add the static keyword to an already pure method. In my experience it's considerably harder to refactor a series of stateful methods that were incorrectly declared static, since you usually also have to plumb the state object through all of the callers, and their callers, and their callers, etc...
By far one of the most common errors I see as a CS instructor is aggressive over-reliance on global state. Not global methods, but state. However, usually what causes the student to reach for global state is the fact that it can be accessed from a static method like main; In lieu of figuring out how to structure a class, they reach for the easier "just make the variable static" approach. Allowing the initialization sequence to call main on an instance via the class's zero-arg constructor seems like it would address the point.