Fine, but then my critique moves over: the article should do a better job of conveying what the argument is and why it matters.

It opens with rms complaining about the names in the emacs ecosystem not being descriptive enough. OK. But the author argues (in these comments) that their argument isn't against names that aren't descriptive, it's just that the name ought to be relevant, and the reason why is because that is more professional.

Now I am paraphrasing so maybe I am not understanding the argument correctly, but I don't think that strengthens the case for this at all. If anything, it begs the question... why? (And I'm not sure rms would particularly buy this argument either, given that he beckons from hacker culture and seems perfectly happy to break social conventions. rms does not hit me as someone who is highly 'professional' in a traditional sense. This is not an indictment.)