You're right, and “... that will change how you think about coding” is clickbait. Luckily the article contains an adjective for that, which we've used in the title. Thanks!
I realise moderation is tough an never pleases everyone, but have to say I'm disappointed here: in some circles, "esoteric" carries some quite strong negative connotations, which I think are unwarranted here.
Some of these languages are definitely suitable for "serious" usage. And I'm not sure I'd count SQL (or Prolog, for that matter) as esoteric at all!
> "esoteric" carries some quite strong negative connotations
What? It didn't strike me that way. (And for what's it's worth, I'm a native English speaker; I was a communication major, an English minor, and a technical writer; since college I have continued to dabble in writing and linguistics for over 15 years; and as you can see I even know how to use a semicolon. :)
Had they said "eccentric," maybe I would have agreed. Esoteric, to me, has more the connotation of a secret society of sages.
Anyway, the article itself uses "esoteric."
By they way, I'm so glad that they declickbaited the headline. Thank you, editor!
> "... that will change how you think about coding” is clickbait
Nonsense. The article's premise is explicitly that the listed paradigms will change how you think about coding. The author may or may not be correct about that, but the original title was not random hyperbole to entice a click - it was an accurate description of the article's premise and content.
Some of these languages are definitely suitable for "serious" usage. And I'm not sure I'd count SQL (or Prolog, for that matter) as esoteric at all!