I think one of the issues is that most sellers of "new" programming paradigms try to sell theirs as "the one". As Floyd pointed out, there's tons, and putting on my conservative hat, there is probably a reason, at least partially good, that the currently dominant paradigm became dominant.
In fact, if I only had one paradigm to play with, I'd probably also want the current one, despite its limitations.
So what we then do is take the current paradigm and try to conservatively extend it. That also doesn't seem to work because you can't just bolt paradigms on top of each other. So putting on my revolutionary hat, we have to blow it all up.
I think the solution is generalization ("refactor to abstract superclass"): do something more general, then reproduce the dominant as well as other paradigms from within that generalization.
In fact, if I only had one paradigm to play with, I'd probably also want the current one, despite its limitations.
So what we then do is take the current paradigm and try to conservatively extend it. That also doesn't seem to work because you can't just bolt paradigms on top of each other. So putting on my revolutionary hat, we have to blow it all up.
I think the solution is generalization ("refactor to abstract superclass"): do something more general, then reproduce the dominant as well as other paradigms from within that generalization.