This article has me torn. On the one hand, I always use multiparadigm languages at work, and have always preferred a pragmatic, "best tool for the job" approach

This article has me torn. On the one hand, I always use multiparadigm languages at work, and have always preferred a pragmatic, "best tool for the job" approach. On the other hand, I am starting to believe that, in truth, there are no multi-paradigm languages. Only imperative languages with bells and whistles. Because what matters isn't how you can use the language, it's how you do use the language. With the peculiar recent exception of Scala, multi-paradigm languages seem to always tend toward a mushy, homogeneous, imperative style whose most noteworthy feature is just how imperative it is. Even with all the classes, higher-order functions, and declarative DSLs sprinkled on top, the overall shape always ends up being overwhelmingly imperative. It takes more than a dollop of meringue to turn apple pie into key lime pie. I didn't really start thinking this way until more recently, when I started looking outside of the mainstream and paying more attention to explicitly single-paradigm languages. I think maybe it's a bit like how McDonald's, A&W, Burger King, Hardee's, etc. all seem completely interchangeable if you don't spend a lot of time eating at them.