Three observations, of the smallest fine tuning variety (its pretty good as is): The essay fluidly rotates between two points of view best expressed by two dir

Three observations, of the smallest fine tuning variety (its pretty good as is): The essay fluidly rotates between two points of view best expressed by two direct quotes: "Note: this is about tracking fashion, not a comment on the actual virtues of these languages." and "getting things done". I don't think those are synonyms or have much to do with each other so the close intermixing is a bit jarring. Often enough they oppose each other. They don't get along so its hard to use them as supporting arguments even if true. Another observation is hard to quote but boils down to languages and paradigms are synonyms, which I disagree with. A language is a pile of paradigms wrapped up in some syntax to formalize it. You can write FORTRAN or perl in any language. Or functional, at least somewhat. Its easier to write worse programs than the language and very hard to write better programs than the level of the language. In that way LISP is the master language above all the others because it can express seemingly anything therefore if everything is beneath it, its above everything. The third paragraph is closest to what I'm trying to express and it comes very close to hitting the mark. It would be interesting to see logic programming in a safety critical embedded space. I'm not sure if it would be "good" interesting or "train wreck" interesting. That would be an interesting suggestion for the second to last paragraph. If you define safety as solving a full set of safety constraints, then automating it would look like ...