No, it just means you can't avoid the reality and the complexity of the problems you'll be dealing with and you won't be able to tackle them unless you bring in more tools or programming languages, be them visual or special languages invented just for the purpose, or some clever way to use excel sheets and generate code from that, for example.

Or it means that, yes, you can choose the easier language, the more intuitive one instead of the abstract beasts and it all goes well for a while. But eventually you'll have to go past the "they did this and then they did that", past the simple to understand if's and else's of everyday life. Then you'll realize that yes, we need this special extra feature here, this clever way of doing things there and before you know it, you've developed dozens of tools, standards and languages just to make up for the lack of power of your initial language. Or you could have chosen the harder language, harder to learn and wield, that is, and it would have offered you better abstractions, it would have offered you better means to develop your ideas and put them into practice without you needing to invent your own tooling.

That's how I've seen it happen in practice. I've expanded it in this article, but it came the other way round. I had a feeling that all this tooling is actually unnecessary or just the result of having bad tooling to start with. Once I've developed these ideas I've remembered about Greenspun's Tenth Rule that I've read and heard about all these years without quite understanding it 100%. Now I think I do. You have to see it with your own eyes, though. If you read it once and it doesn't make sense, re-reading it probably wouldn't.

I hope this helps.