I have to disagree here. Hepburn is superior unless your goal is transliteration from Roman characters to kana. From the article (which also argues against kunrei)
> Romanized Japanese is essentially an auxiliary device — a reading aid, if you will — and not the real thing.
Romanization is for foreigners. Japanese people would read the original kana/kanji anyway
Korean went through a similar reform and I also disagree with it. Favoring transliteration (linguists and academics) over the actual sounds (everyday people) is harmful for communication.
> Romanization is for foreigners. Japanese people would read the original kana/kanji anyway
Assuming it is only used for reading purpose. It is actually also useful for typing in Japanese with a keyboard without kanas, though it is still mostly relevant for foreigners.
Side note: I personally like input systems that support both romanizations simultaneously, since there are shorter combinations in each one. For instance, "si" saves one letter compared to "shi", and "ju" is also easier to type compared to "zyu".
Korean went through a similar reform and I also disagree with it. Favoring transliteration (linguists and academics) over the actual sounds (everyday people) is harmful for communication.