- Shows limited knowledge of the author (that imperative and functional are the only paradigms; ever looked at wikipedia page on programming paradigms [1], especially the sidebar on the right?)
- There is no such thing that goes by the name Cartesian Programming (likely the author giving his own name to something known with a different name).
- In the text, author starts discussing the paradigm with a tone that assumes the reader knows what it is.
Sometimes, I wish I could double downvote a comment.
The author doesn't claim those are the one two paradigms.
The author effectively calls out that there is no existing thing that goes by that name - how could he, when in the first paragraph he says he has never heard of it elsewhere.
He succinctly states what it is before going into more detail.
Well the title of the HN post is changed already. Before it is changed on the blog post as well (in which case my comment would look very misplaced), here it is:
"Sure, we have imperative and functional. But what about Cartesian programming?"
> The author doesn't claim those are the one two paradigms.
I never said the author made that claim (I said it shows the state of his knowledge). But for any statement along the lines "Sure we have imperative and functional. But what about X?"
Well what about X? There are plently of X's around. If you look at the right sidebar on the page I linked, the number of X's are probably 30 to 40. Has the author studied and understood those 30 to 40 before asking "what about X"?
What does the reader learn about X if the author doesn't put in the effort to study at least half of the 30 to 40 paradigms and then put his own thoughts in proper context? Well I guess the author might realize what he/she is thinking of is so well-known under another name that his way of presenting the content is simply causing more unnecessary terminology and bloat on the internet.
- Shows limited knowledge of the author (that imperative and functional are the only paradigms; ever looked at wikipedia page on programming paradigms [1], especially the sidebar on the right?)
- There is no such thing that goes by the name Cartesian Programming (likely the author giving his own name to something known with a different name).
- In the text, author starts discussing the paradigm with a tone that assumes the reader knows what it is.
All in all, a low effort post.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm