Sure, of course not all linguists who disagree with UG are anti-computationalists. (I don't know about "the overwhelming mass," but that is possibly the result of my exposure to a local concentration of anti-computationalists.) Many tentatively accept some sort of computability while rejecting the specific model of UG, as you correctly note.
My comment was directed at the author of the specific article, and at many functionalist and postmodernist linguists, who actively conflate the question of computability in general with the validity of UG as a specific model.
My comment was directed at the author of the specific article, and at many functionalist and postmodernist linguists, who actively conflate the question of computability in general with the validity of UG as a specific model.