That isn't a strong meta-point, it's like saying it isn't the bike, it's the cyclist. Sure Lance can beat me on a junker bike. But he can't win the Tour on a junker.
So if you want to succeed, and you have a choice about language, you still need to pick the best language for your circumstances. The importance of people and process doesn't invalidate that any more than the importance of Lance Armstrong invalidates the importance of bicycle engineering in the Tour.
All that being said, I agree with the last sentence of your comment. It's just that I don't meet many people who say that with the right language they don't need anything else, so I'm not sure who you're debating. For example, all of the Rubyists I know fetishizes testing. None of them have ever said to me that thanks to Ruby, they no longer need tests. What they actually say is that Ruby makes testing easier, which is your point.
So yes, process and people are important, we all agree. So who, exactly, says anything to the contrary?
I see where you're going, and I'm probably not as clear as I wanted to be (and probably don't have time to be!)
The ruby community is interesting because of the testing focus, which possibly negates my point a bit. However, I meet plenty of Rubyists who are so focused on tests (which are easy to do because of the language) that they eschew documentation, of any kind.
I've talked to more than a few Rubyists who are now in the 'my code is self-documenting because Ruby is so elegant and my method names and variables are so awesome and I can metaprogram anything I need that there's 0 need to have any comments or documentation - just read my code and the awesomeness of Ruby will overtake you'.
I don't particularly care how elegant your code is, having some inline comments will not hurt. Having external documentation, and sane commit log comments, and so on, are vital in my view. I'm not picking on Rubyists here specifically, that's just the few that spring to mind.
You know what? I need a browser plugin that delays posting all comments until I've finished my second coffee. You make some good points, I suspect we agree on almost everything.
In a way, good languages are interesting because they make good practices so easy they're invisible.
Which makes me very interested in the question of documentation. Throwing tests out the window as documentation for the purposes of this discussion, how do you feel about DSLs as one form of self-documenting code?
So if you want to succeed, and you have a choice about language, you still need to pick the best language for your circumstances. The importance of people and process doesn't invalidate that any more than the importance of Lance Armstrong invalidates the importance of bicycle engineering in the Tour.
All that being said, I agree with the last sentence of your comment. It's just that I don't meet many people who say that with the right language they don't need anything else, so I'm not sure who you're debating. For example, all of the Rubyists I know fetishizes testing. None of them have ever said to me that thanks to Ruby, they no longer need tests. What they actually say is that Ruby makes testing easier, which is your point.
So yes, process and people are important, we all agree. So who, exactly, says anything to the contrary?