Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling someone "on the first peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve" is patronizing them.
How would you have handled it?
Instead of
> Meanwhile, plenty of us have found a way to enhance our productivity during deep work. No need for the patronization.
you could have written
> Personally, I found doing X does enhance my productivity during deep work.
Why it's better: 1) cuts out the confrontation (“you're being patronizing!”), 2) offers the information directly instead of merely implying that you've found it, and 3) speaks for yourself and avoids the generalization about “plenty of people”, which could be taken as a veiled insult (“you must be living as a hermit or something”).
Next:
> You can do better than a No true Scotsman fallacy.
Even if the comment were a No True Scotsman, I would not have made that fact the central thesis of this paragraph. Instead, I might have explained the error in the argument instead. Advantages: 1) you can come out clean in the case that you might be wrong about the fallacy, and 2) the commenter might appreciate the insight.
Reason you're wrong in this case: The commenter referred entirely to their own experience and made no “true programmer” assertions.
Next:
> Essentially, this is a skill issue [...] Dunning–Kruger curve [...] chose to assume that you knew better. [...]
I would have left out these entire two paragraphs. As best as I can tell, they contain only personal attacks. As a result, the reader comes away feeling like your only purpose here is to put others down. Instead, when you wrote
> You could have asked for tips
I personally would have just written out the tips. Advantage: the reader may find it useful in the best case, and even if not, at least appreciate your contribution.