alt Hacker NewsAuthor here. I think in general this is sound advice, but in Emacs it is an incredibly convenient utility. I use them all the time. Mostly simple things like wrapping function definitions, or even other macros that wrap function definitions. Most of my lisp experience is in Emacs where the config layer is essentially exposed through an elisp API. In that context, I find myself using macros a lot. But if I was building some software from scratch, like say a data processing system, I can't immediately think of scenarios where I would define macros.
Worth mentioning in Elisp that even if you don't define your own macros, you use them more often than you would think. defun, unless, def-custom, etc (more examples in the blog post) are all macros. The fact they look and feel like non-macros like special forms and built in functions implemented in C is part of what makes elisp so cool to me. There are plenty of homoiconic languages, but you rarely feel the distinction between program and data in elisp, and macro-supporting lisps in general.
If you look at the definition of a macro like defcustom, you'll see that it just expands to a function call, where all the logic is implemented. This could also be implemented in the macro, but that is more complicated and brittle, due to the risk of double-evaluations and having to produce code that will (usually) later evaluate with the intended side effect.
Furthermore, macros and functions constitute a kind of function coloring. To use a macro in a function, like defcustom, you couldn't pass the name of the user option you are defining in as a symbol, as that is not evaluated. So instead you'd have to call eval on a runtime constructed expression, which is a cludge.
So I agree with the top comment, to avoid macros is a sign of Lisp maturity. It is easy and fun to admire them when you are coming from languages with arbitrary restrictions in their macro systems like C, but ones you get used to them you don't treat them with any more wonder than any other arbitrary restriction that a language may lack (bad ad hoc example: nobody praises C for the lack of a CALL keyword).