> I don’t disagree on any of your technical points. But I also think for practical purposes you’re missing the forest here. I agree with the sentiment of the article - I think the big trend in
general purpose PLs is a blend of multiple classical paradigms.
You’re not wrong. That may even be the sentiment of the article. But the article certainly doesn’t phrase it that way — it’s saying that modern programming languages are ‘beyond paradigms’. That’s clearly wrong, and that’s what I’m arguing against.
