Or just start a rich environment, like a browser, or excel. Interface-wise there are many things that emacs can't do. Feature-wise there is even more missing because of lacking manpower.
I think they were being completely facetious. That said, I also think requiring it be "in process" is unnecessary. One of the most powerful features of org is babel, which clearly pushes out the execution to the external tools.
> That said, I also think requiring it be "in process" is unnecessary.
No, this is important for integration. Integration is the main benefit you have while using emacs.
> One of the most powerful features of org is babel, which clearly pushes out the execution to the external tools.
Yes, but it has very limited interaction with them. The whole interface is in emacs. Emacs is doing many of this embedded fire n' forget-style interactions. That doesn't make them richful.
In this, I just disagree. Yes, I agree that emacs main strength is that everything is programmable. No, I don't mind that I have to reach out to other computers/programs for some things to happen.
If anything, I think I dislike the other tools so much because they do fall into the trap of requiring all things be in process. I think that is a huge reason that they don't focus as much on the serialization of their data in a friendly way.
That is to say, if other programs worked harder (or at all) at making themselves programmable, their programs could force a form of stability that is unheard of in many of them. And then I could happily control them from emacs. :D
But that's okay. Every job it's right tool.