This is really interesting. Both photos look great. I agree that the post-processed RAW photo is slightly better, but that's a lot of effort for a 5% improvement.
Granted, if you're going to print it, publish it, or use it to showcase your skills, that 5% makes a difference. Differences for me? The sparkly water reflection, the extra detail in the really dark trees, and even the size of the sun's orb itself.
I also like the RAW one better.
I think it's also important to note that zeljkok is very skilled with a camera so his JPEG version was almost perfect. For the average person, it's much more common for there to be problems with exposure, etc. in the original shot and RAW is a lot more forgiving for making adjustments after the fact.
I used to shoot RAW+JPEG. 95% of the time, I'd just use the JPEG for posting on the web. Having the RAW was great because I could export it in a lossless format for printing and could modify it if I wished. These days, I have a faster computer and I pay for Lightroom. The workflow is so efficient that I tend to just shoot RAW.
In the context of this discussion, I think it's also important to note that I enjoy the post processing. It's not a chore for me (at least not yet.) It's another enjoyable step.
Finally, I find that the camera is less likely to get the white balance right during the most interesting shooting conditions (sunset, sunrise, etc.) and so I like the ability to tweak the white balance after the fact which is something you can do when you shoot RAW.