[j2kun]

It looks like the author prides himself on reinventing ideas. I've read a handful of his other posts, and he's "reinvented" the Y combinator, the proof of the halting problem, and other such things. It appears that, perhaps partially by a perpetual mishap with diction and connotation, the author claims that his reinventions are original ideas, his opinions are fact, or that his insights are somehow deeper or his arguments are better.

I see this happen all the time, with myself and with others, and I think it's a common thing in mathematics (the author is in CS, so he might not get exposed to this as much as I do). I've seen undergrads finally realize that calculus makes sense and explain how much deeper their understanding is now that they've really thought about it, and I smile and nod my head. I've myself touted my own deep understanding like it's not completely trivial to somebody with years of experience.

I think this article shares that sentiment. The author has thought of on his own accord what we all consider a dead and beaten horse, and is shouting his thoughts from his proverbial mountaintop: no paradigm is perfect for every situation.

Best of luck to him for all his thoughts, but he'd better learn when and where to curb his enthusiasm if he wants others to take him seriously. For the record, this doesn't apply to his personal blog. I expect sooner or later he'll have a post talking about how Haskell's pure style is all about giving the sculpter more clay.