[roenxi]

I suspect it is possible to make the same argument for the contrary position. Once we're talking about "some functional and Lispy features thrown in"; we must start to question what a paradigm is.

If I write a program, fundamentally I have a blob in my head that I'm reifying into formal logic. It doesn't make sense to talk about the blob as having a paradigm; but I'm not sure that it is useful to talk about the reification as having a "paradigm" either. The appropriate techniques to be used are on a functional-imperative spectrum based on how stateful the problem is.

This whole idea of programming paradigms I think is a mis-take of a more fundamental question of how to classify programming problems - we're looking at the shadow in Plato's cave and getting nonsense because we expect the problem to to take on aspects of the programming language. Which is not a strategy for achieving success. We should be classifying problems based on state, not programming languages based on paradigms.

Most of the experts have figured that out, they pick their programming language based on the problem space they want to deal in. But the paradigm paradigm doesn't help in making those decisions, so it's utility is low.