FWIW, I don't think he has the slightest clue what leiningen is. It is hardly "basically a shell script which Does Things". It is written entirely in Clojure. All the shell script does is tie it together and bootstrap things. I'm fine with criticism, but not blatantly inaccurate information.
Oddly, the bit you call out as critical of Clojure, and use to say he has no clue what he's talking about, is the bit where he says that a tool written in Clojure "works brilliantly" and is an example of how Clojure is more useful to people than Common Lisp.
Read in context, I took that "shell script" statement as trying to describe Lein from the user's perspective-- which would make sense, given that his point there is its utility.
For what it's worth, I've never used Lein, and had no presuppositions about it. When I read the paragraph, I carried away the idea that Lein was written in Clojure and acts like a well-done command-line tool.
I didn't say it was critical of Clojure. It was misinformation and I called it out as such. Regardless of perspective, incorrect is incorrect.
Furthermore, he did clearly state that lein's design is "Oogly" and seemed to be using his shell script statement as an example.
EDIT: Re-reading your post, I'd like to point out that my response here is solely about his remarks about leiningen and not the post in general. I'm passing no judgement on what he knows and doesn't know in general and merely pointing out that Leiningen is absolutely not just a big ol' shell script like he implies. Whether he meant it that way or not, I felt someone needed to point out that it isn't true.
