The comments to this article miss the point. They argue that language does matter, and that choosing the right one makes a big difference. This article never disagrees. On a case-by-case basis you do need to pick the tool that works the best, but in a larger sense, languages don't matter - they're a means to an end, and not an end of themselves. The meaning of the analogy of the craftsmen should really be apparent, but it seems not to be - if two tools are both suited to completing a job, and the quality is comparable in the end, then what does it matter what tools were used in creating it? Perhaps some tools would be lower cost, perhaps faster to create in, perhaps more accessible, and these all need to be taken into consideration. The author does not argue otherwise. What he's arguing is that people who only know, and only care to know, one programming language limit themselves drastically because of their devotion to one tool, when there might be many ways to approach a problem. There is no "best" tool, only a best tool for a specific purpose, and even then the best must be qualified with "under these conditions."