3 ms·
> 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 ar
by bradrn 3y ago
> 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.
- klabb3 3y agoFair enough! I agree with that and looks like I missed your main point. It’s a bit naive and generally ahistorical to think we’ve “transcended paradigms”, whether within tech or outside. It’s similar to the bias of thinking that current year/western/majority perspectives are “enlightened” and free of bias. Usually just means we’re unable to see the bigger picture.