The article appears to be flamebait. The main point is trivial because it applies to nearly every single technique/tool/language/framework: "X is not perfect.

The article appears to be flamebait. The main point is trivial because it applies to nearly every single technique/tool/language/framework: "X is not perfect. X can/should not be applied in all situations. X must be augmented by Y. X is a means to an end, not an end unto itself." etc. It mixes the trivial, obviously true ("Every technique has to be measured on its own, independent of weather or not it’s 'functional'") with that sure to offend ("The Religion of FP"). I don't see any real insight. What does it have to say that we didn't already know?