I have no experience in this style, but my experience with bootcampers and others has me wondering how much of the benefit is accidental because of their implem

I have no experience in this style, but my experience with bootcampers and others has me wondering how much of the benefit is accidental because of their implementation of this style, rather than because of the different teaching style itself. Specifically: I've had multiple co-workers who learned one programming language (bootcamp, self-taught, or otherwise) and were resistant to learning another one. Based on things they've said after I'd pushed them to do something in another language, I think their resistance was entirely because they remember how difficult the first programming language was and expect further languages to be similarly difficult. Instead, as they start to actually work with the second language they realize how much is conceptually similar - the things this article refers to as typically learned implicitly through experience. But the alternate style described in the article does the same thing: moving from a sort-of pseudocode (the design process) to student Racket to Java (per another comment here) gets that same implicit learning benefit independent of a full restructuring of the curriculum. I wouldn't be surprised if keeping the more traditional style and simply requiring different languages in different courses/years gets most of the benefits with minimal changes.