Why is it a terrible advice?
About javascript(vanilla js), nobody even wants touch it anymore. Almost anybody who interacts with javascript code does it with a 5 foot stick(coffescript, clojurescript), and/or behind huge frameworks that protects you from its perils.
Something that is more usable and understandable in its barebones state like python makes more sense for beginners.
There is a huge amount of tooling these days and specially the Node.js community and ecosystem are flourishing. Code coverage, static analysis, test frameworks for every use case imaginable, you name it.
Coffeescript and its brethren are a "solution" for people who are not interested in JavaScript and don't care about performance / maintainability in the long term. The additional compile step and the resulting problems with not being able to know exactly what it ends up generating become a huge burden in the long run. If you're really good in JS, you know what we'll be JIT'ted and what not, just like a really good C++ developer knows what the compiler will eventually optimize away and what not.
Seriously, building your cool, new library in <Insert Fancy New Compile to JS Language here> is like writing the latest addition to Boost in C89. Nobody wants to depend on it in the long run.
From what I have seen, the people who are mainly using things like Coffeescript are coming from Ruby or Python and want their cool-aid back.
If you don't want to learn a language, don't use it and if that means you won't be able to do stuff on the web, well I'm totally fine with that. I've seen enough code that looked like a J2EE developer just started coding C the other day.
Learning a language with prototype-based inheritance would serve less for a beginner than a professional.
That's your personal opinion, and frankly, it reeks of elitism.
Actually, it was. If you read the rest of the parent's comment, he completes that sentence with: "...and sure as hell HTML/CSS is not programming."
So it's pretty clear from the way the sentence is written that the parent has clearly established some sort of hierarchy in his mind, and what he actually meant was, "web programming is not real programming."
No, it wasn't. Read it more carefully. You may be right about the beliefs of the author, and I don't endorse the entirety of the comment, but "web programming is not programming" was not said anywhere there, and the principle of charity would suggest you should at least make sure that is what the author was trying to convey before lambasting them for it.
"If you read the rest of the parent's comment"
I did. Before I replied to you, even.
'he completes that sentence with: "...and sure as hell HTML/CSS is not programming."'
HTML/CSS is not programming, it's markup. Markdown and LaTeX are also not programming. That doesn't mean there can't be plenty of programming that involves those.
'So it's pretty clear from the way the sentence is written that the parent has clearly established some sort of hierarchy in his mind, and what he actually meant was, "web programming is not real programming."'
It's plausible, but again, principle of charity.