Paul Graham is a funny guy. From one point in history, where he wrote an unmaintainable (they had to drop it) and unsuccessfull (Amazon has beaten them) piece of software which he sold to someone clueless (Yahoo will go down in flames) with too much money (they again buy companies without clue), he extrapolates (from this random event) his view to the whole craft of software development. Funny to read, but pointless. If you read Paul Graham, Nostradamus might be a good reading for you too.
Especially when reading his ramblings about painters, one gets the impression that it depends on the tool an artist uses whether the art he creates is good or bad. Oil is good, crayons are bad. Somehow then he applies this to software development. Funny! I've seen good code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java, C and a dozen other languages. And I've seen bad code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java C and a dozen other languages. And I've seen good and bad developers writing code in Basic, Ruby, Lisp, Machine Code, Java, C and a dozen other languages. In reality good code usually depends on the production enviroment and the skills of the developer. Not on the tools (Which does not mean you should not choose adequate tools).
A worthy goal for life would be to comment every blog post about Paul Graham with a link to Fooled by Randomness (No there is no partner link because I want to make money from your quest for knowledge) and a link to Hacknots faery tales.