I didn't like the article. I feel like some authors would really benefit from writing a first draft and then condensing it down to 1/n. In this case, like 1/10

I didn't like the article. I feel like some authors would really benefit from writing a first draft and then condensing it down to 1/n. In this case, like 1/10. The author has an interesting and explicit model as a table for how to classify some languages. Everything else is either fluff or should be a separate article. For example, you either assume we're talking about moder languages, or your model needs to be way broader and more theoretical. Tangents about days when langauges were tied (at least way more than today) to hardware were unnecessary. That also goes for the biased way the author talks about their favorite languages. It's also rife with things that, quite frankly speaking - I don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's almost like satire about how Haskellers are so clueless that they never think about run-time considerations. Or meandering thoughts on language theory (gotta drop in references to random wiki articles somehow I guess) about how it shapes our thoughts which don't amount to much because they say nothing interesting because they keep it too vague where the real answer is it depends. Or the loaded statements the author makes about Rust (in an honestly confusing way by framing it through the paretto front). Rust does not have the same guarantees as something with GC like Java. Even if you disagree with me on that, we should at least agree that this isn't as settled as the author makes it out to be.