Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
Whether ECS is or is not a paradigm really depends on your definition of the word 😊 I picked a definition that worked well for the blog, but there are others (like Kuhns paradigm) and they may or may not apply to ECS.
My personal interpretation of a paradigm is that it should at least allow for the expression of designs in a vocabulary that is not specific to a domain, language or framework. I am “abusing” the word to contrast ECS with OOP, which has a much more well defined vocabulary for describing designs. Currently ECS terminology is very framework specific and usually ambiguous. As a result I cannot clearly communicate a design to someone using a different framework.
I do believe that we should strive for ECS to be feature complete, which doesn’t meant that it ever will be, or that it is useless if it isn’t. But leaving things unanswered just means that those have to be solved on a per-project basis, and that distracts from building actual applications.