The document discusses paradigm shifting from 1960 to 2013, providing a map of major paradigms across various domains like hardware, operating systems, languages, frameworks, databases, and applications. It defines key terms like buzzword, paradigm, and paradigm shifting. The map shows the evolution of paradigms over time aimed at taking decisions on which paradigms are better for a given context.

1. Paradigm Shifting
from 1960 to 2013
2005 BUP & EPF
Vi rt ual i zat i on
M obi l e
WWW
CPU
( Hardw are)
O perat i ve
Syst em
Languages
Framew orks
Dat aBase
Present at i on
Archi t ect ure
Q ual i t y
Appl i cat i ons
Soci al Technol ogi es
1979 Unix
1981 M S­ DO S
1966 DO S
1985 Windows
1991 Linux
2007 Linux Andr oid
1993 Newt on
1988 M ac
2004 Linux­ Ubunt u
1978 8086
1982 286
1993 Pent ium
2006 Dual Cor e
2007 Q uad Cor e
2011 10 Cor e
1988 SUN sof t pc
1979 I BM VM
1997 M AC vir t ualpc
1998 VM War e
2003 XEN
2008 KVM
1993 Newt on
2007 Kindle 2010 I pad
2011 G alaxy
2007 I Phone
2007 Andr oid
1991 HTM L
1995 AWT
1999 JSP
2002 Vaadin
1992 O penG L
2006 G WT 1. 0
2004 JSF 1. 0
1993 M osaic
1994 Newt on
1994 Net scape
1996 Saf ar i
1998 Fir ef ox
1995 I Explor er
2011 BBer r y
2011 FFox M
2011 Chr om e
2007 Saf ar i M
2008 Andr oid M
2008 Chr om e
2009 O per a M
2001 Explor er M
1996 Apache
1987 CM M
1989 I TI L
1991 SCRUM
1993 M SF
1999 XP
2003 RUP
1998 ASP
1996 Flash
2007 Silver Light
1999 G PU
2013
1996 Palm
2000 Pocket PC
2001 Win XP
2009 Win 7
1996 Win NT
1987 O S/ 2
1984 G NU
2008 At om
2002 CM M I
1990 WWW 2000 Pocket PC
1960
1980
1990
2000
2010
2011 Chr om e M
2009 G WT 2. 0
2007 Vaadin/ G WT
1970
2000
2010
1990
1960
1980
1970
1975 Tandem
1991 Tandem ­ M ips
2001 Tandem ­ I t anium
1975 Tandem T/ TO S
1994 Tandem O SS ( Unix)
2006 JSP­ JSTL
2000 HTM L 4
2008 HTM L 5
2006 Linux 2. 4
2011 Linux 3. 0
2001 M AC O S 10
2012 M AC O S 10. 8
2009 JSF 2. 0
1997 WAP
2013 Vaadin 7
1970 DBM S
1978 RDM S
1979 O r acle
1997 O r acle O RDBM S
1994 M ysql
2004 DB4O
2001 HSQ L
2005 H2
1980 O O DM S
1988 O r acle RDBM S
1979 M VC
1980 O SI
1998 XM L
1981 RPC
1996 DCO M
1997 RM I
1998 SO AP
2000 REST
2007 Cloud
2000 Ajax
1997 M VP 1987 Sybase RDBM S
1989 M icr osof t SQ L
1967 O bject O r ient ed
1983 I nt er net
1970 Chat
1970 Enail
1991 WWW­ 3 Layer
2002 RI A
2002 Pr evayler
1972 C
1972 SQ L
1983 C++
2001 Aspect J2001 C#
2003 Scala
1999 J2EE
2000 . NET
2001 Hiber nat e
2006 O penJDK
2005 Har m ony
1967 Sim ula
1968 BI
1980 BPM S
1979 Ecom m er ce
1984 St ar of f ice
1989 M S of f ice1990 ERP
2000 O penO f f ice
2006 G oogle Docs
2011 M S O f f 365
2000 RSA Public
1991 I SO ­ S. Engineer ing
1993 I SO ­ S. Pr ocess
1960 RFC
1950 Fr eesof t war e
1970 BBS
1958 Lisp
1959 Cobol
2007 Clojur e
2004 BPM N
2004 O O DVS
2002 Spr ing2000 Lif er ay
1991 M S Visual Basic
2004 Eclipse
1991 M S Power Builder
2012Win Phone 8
1985 M acApp
1995 Java
1996 Cocoa
1991 M S Visual Basic
1995 Wikis
1997 G oogle
1998 O pensour ce
1999 Sour cef or ge
2001 Wikipedia
2003 Linkedin
2004 Facebook
1990 WWW
1995 M S Visual St udio
1997 Net beans
1995 Java
1995 PHP
1995 JavaScr ipt
1997 UM L
2012 Win 8, WinSer ver
2012 Linux U Unit y
2012 Linux Andr oid 4. 1
2008 Hyper ­ V
2009 M ongo DB
2007 Am azon EC2
2009 Windows Azur e
2009 G oogle Apps Engine
2010 O penSt ack
2006 Twit t er
1999 RSS
2006 O penUP
2001 O WASP & I SO ­ Secur it y
1993 M SF
1993 EDI
2004 PCI
1990 Ver sant O bject t DB
2007 Hadoop
2010 M ar ia DB
1980 DI S
1993 CO RBA
2000 HLA
1998 Java 3D
1995 VRM L
2004 Hypper Thr eading
1997 Swing
2001 Webst ar t
1995 Applet s
2000 O SG i
1980 Sm all t alk M VC
2004 Naked O bject s
Paradigm Shifting (2012­2014)
(Dimishing Barriers, Solution Architectures)
Diego E. Malpica Chauvet et al.
www.openkowledge.mx, diego­malpica@openknowledge.mx
1 Abstract
There are many paradigms walking around as buzz words, (Service Oriented, Workflow Oriented, Document Oriented,
Object Oriented, Aspect Oriented, Event Oriented, NoSQL, Tiers, Layers, Functional Programming, Patterns, Principles,
Cloud, Paradigms, Models, Model View Controller, Model View Presenter). The paradigms we use may be commonly
named as a "Solution Architecture". Which paradigms would you like to peek? Which cost benefit trade­offs you may
need to do in order to meet some quality criteria?
Paradigms walking as Buzzwords
3 Tier Architecture
Functional Programming
Object Oriented
Tiers
Workflows
Web services
Service Oriented
Event Oriented
Relational Data Base
MVP Patterns MVVM
MVC
Hierchical Database
Computing
NoSQL
Multi-Tier
In this paper we propose a technique for building a "Paradigm Shifting Maps" that would help us to identify the mayor
paradigms that would define a Solution Architecture.
2 Introduction
Lets define some concepts in order to build a map that may help us to identify our current paradigms and to shift between
them according our goals.
2.1 Buzzword
A buzzword is a word or phrase used to impress, or an expression which is fashionable. Buzzwords often originate in
jargon. Buzzwords are often neologisms[6].
2.2 Paradigm
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the basic meaning of the term paradigm as "a pattern or model, an exemplar". The
historian of science Thomas Kuhn gave it its contemporary meaning when he adopted the word to refer to the set of

2. practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. In his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as: "universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time,
provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers[1].
2.3 Paradigm Shifting
A paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is, according to Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (1962), a change in the basic assumptions, or paradigms, within the ruling theory of science.[5]
2.4 Paradigm Shifting Map
Maps has constituted a high value tool along the human history, they resume our knowledge from a defined point of
view. We define Paradigm Shifting Map as the one that help us take decisions regarding witch paradigms would be
better for a determined context.
3 Hands on practice
Regardless your knowledge area we can classify your paradigms and build time lines.
With each class of paradigms we need to find its relevant dates, each paradigm is influenced by its predecessors so its
important to document its goals as a way to know the conditions that prevailed when a paradigm appears.
Here is our current "Paradigm Map" (2013/04) for Information Technologies before distinguishing them according our
current context.
Paradigm Shifting
from 1960 to 2013
2005 BUP & EPF
Virtualization
Mobile
WWW
CPU
(Hardware)
Operative
System
Languages
Frameworks
DataBase
Presentation
Architecture
Quality
Applications
Social Technologies
1979 Unix
1981 MS­DOS
1966 DOS
1985 Windows
1991 Linux
2007 Linux Android
1993 Newton
1988 Mac
2004 Linux­Ubuntu
1978 8086
1982 286
1993 Pentium
2006 Dual Core
2007 Quad Core
2011 10 Core
1988 SUN softpc
1979 IBM VM
1997 MAC virtualpc
1998 VMWare
2003 XEN
2008 KVM
1993 Newton
2007 Kindle
2010 Ipad
2011 Galaxy
2007 IPhone
2007 Android
1991 HTML
1995 AWT
1999 JSP
2002 Vaadin
1992 OpenGL
2006 GWT 1.0
2004 JSF 1.0
1993 Mosaic
1994 Newton
1994 Netscape
1996 Safari
1998 Firefox
1995 IExplorer
2011 BBerry
2011 FFox M
2011 Chrome
2007 Safari M
2008 Android M
2008 Chrome
2009 Opera M
2001 Explorer M
1996 Apache
1987 CMM
1989 ITIL
1991 SCRUM
1993 MSF
1999 XP
2003 RUP
1998 ASP
1996 Flash
2007 SilverLight
1999 GPU
2013
1996 Palm
2000 PocketPC
2001 Win XP
2009 Win 7
1996 Win NT
1987 OS/2
1984 GNU
2008 Atom
2002 CMMI
1990 WWW 2000 PocketPC
1960
1980
1990
2000
2010
2011 Chrome M
2009 GWT 2.0
2007 Vaadin/GWT
1970
2000
2010
1990
1960
1980
1970
1975 Tandem
1991 Tandem­Mips
2001 Tandem­Itanium
1975 Tandem T/TOS
1994 Tandem OSS (Unix)
2006 JSP­JSTL
2000 HTML 4
2008 HTML 5
2006 Linux 2.4
2011 Linux 3.0
2001 MAC OS 10
2012 MAC OS 10.8
2009 JSF 2.0
1997 WAP
2013 Vaadin 7
1970 DBMS
1978 RDMS
1979 Oracle
1997 Oracle ORDBMS
1994 Mysql
2004 DB4O
2001 HSQL
2005 H2
1980 OODMS
1988 Oracle RDBMS
1979 MVC
1980 OSI
1998 XML
1981 RPC
1996 DCOM
1997 RMI
1998 SOAP
2000 REST
2007 Cloud
2000 Ajax
1997 MVP
1987 Sybase RDBMS
1989 Microsoft SQL
1967 Object Oriented
1983 Internet
1970 Chat
1970 Enail
1991 WWW­3 Layer
2002 RIA
2002 Prevayler
1972 C
1972 SQL
1983 C++
2001 AspectJ
2001 C#
2003 Scala
1999 J2EE
2000 .NET
2001 Hibernate
2006 OpenJDK
2005 Harmony
1967 Simula
1968 BI
1980 BPMS
1979 Ecommerce
1984 Staroffice
1989 MS office1990 ERP
2000 OpenOffice
2006 Google Docs
2011 MS Off365
2000 RSA Public
1991 ISO­S. Engineering
1993 ISO­S. Process
1960 RFC
1950 Freesoftware
1970 BBS
1958 Lisp
1959 Cobol
2007 Clojure
2004 BPMN
2004 OODVS
2002 Spring2000 Liferay
1991 MS Visual Basic
2004 Eclipse
1991 MS Power Builder
2012Win Phone 8
1985 MacApp
1995 Java
1996 Cocoa
1991 MS Visual Basic
1995 Wikis
1997 Google
1998 Opensource
1999 Sourceforge
2001 Wikipedia
2003 Linkedin
2004 Facebook
1990 WWW
1995 MS Visual Studio
1997 Netbeans
1995 Java
1995 PHP
1995 JavaScript
1997 UML
2012 Win 8, WinServer
2012 Linux U Unity
2012 Linux Android 4.1
2008 Hyper­V
2009 Mongo DB
2007 Amazon EC2
2009 Windows Azure
2009 Google Apps Engine
2010 OpenStack
2006 Twitter
1999 RSS
2006 OpenUP
2001 OWASP & ISO­Security
1993 MSF
1993 EDI
2004 PCI
1990 Versant ObjecttDB
2007 Hadoop
2010 Maria DB
1980 DIS
1993 CORBA
2000 HLA
1998 Java 3D
1995 VRML
2004 Hypper Threading
1997 Swing
2001 Webstart
1995 Applets
2000 OSGi
1980 Small talk MVC
2004 Naked Objects
Figure 1

3. To distinguish the paradigms that are relevant for your current context, we use a color code that identify the kind of
paradigm:
New and promising, not everything is good just for being new, one of the first criteria for selection at least
for a first filter may be to find the new ones that has stated even in an informal way that they may reduce
costs, complexity or increase efficiency.
Selected these are the ones that are feasible considering our capacities, resources, and restrictions.
Old and Valid, old is not a synonymous of obsolete proven technologies are always of high value,
however you will always need to review if they are a good choice for your current context since they use
may imply some trade­off's.
Granted Obsolete this are the ones that we take with out reviewing its implications in the current context, a
decision out of context can lead us any way.
Here are some examples for New and promising paradigms.
Presentation (GWT/Vaadin)
"The server­side development model doubles productivity by automating everything related to browser and ajax
communication. Built­in themes make your application look great, data sources help you connect to the backend and the
UI components make building a great user experience easy. You could say that Vaadin is a superset of GWT for
business oriented applications with focus on developer productivity. [7]
Persistence (DB4O)
No time is spent on learning a separate data manipulation or query language. Unlike incumbent, string­based, non­
native APIs (such as SQL, OQL, JDOQL and others) Native Queries and LINQ are 100% type­safe, 100% refactorable
and 100% object­oriented, boosting developer productivity by up to 30%. [8]
Cross­cutting Concerns (AspectJ)
To integrate different tools may be difficult, object oriented tools may be complemented using aspect oriented tools to
take care of cross­cutting concerns. [9]
Finally we make a thick circle using the color code with in the date that best represent the kind of paradigms for your
current context. This Representative date may be the average date of the paradigms of the same kind. The following map
represents the paradigm shifting that we are applying for our project "Concept framework".

4. Paradigm Shifting
from 1991 to 2013
2005 BUP & EPF
Virtualization
Mobile
WWW
CPU
(Hardware)
Operative
System
Languages
Frameworks
DataBase
Presentation
Architecture
Quality
Applications
Social Technologies
1979 Unix
1981 MS­DOS
1966 DOS
1985 Windows
1991 Linux
2007 Linux Android
1993 Newton
1988 Mac
2004 Linux­Ubuntu
1978 8086
1982 286
1993 Pentium
2006 Dual Core
2007 Quad Core
2011 10 Core
1988 SUN softpc
1979 IBM VM
1997 MAC virtualpc
1998 VMWare
2003 XEN
2008 KVM
1993 Newton
2007 Kindle
2010 Ipad
2011 Galaxy
2007 IPhone
2007 Android
1991 HTML
1995 AWT
1999 JSP
2002 Vaadin
1992 OpenGL
2006 GWT 1.0
2004 JSF 1.0
1993 Mosaic
1994 Newton
1994 Netscape
1996 Safari
1998 Firefox
1995 IExplorer
2011 BBerry
2011 FFox M
2011 Chrome
2007 Safari M
2008 Android M
2008 Chrome
2009 Opera M
2001 Explorer M
1996 Apache
1987 CMM
1989 ITIL
1991 SCRUM
1993 MSF
1999 XP
2003 RUP
1998 ASP
1996 Flash
2007 SilverLight
1999 GPU
2013
1996 Palm
2000 PocketPC
2001 Win XP
2009 Win 7
1996 Win NT
1987 OS/2
1984 GNU
2008 Atom
2002 CMMI
1990 WWW 2000 PocketPC
1960
1980
1990
2000
2010
2011 Chrome M
2009 GWT 2.0
2007 Vaadin/GWT
1970
2000
2010
1990
1960
1980
1970
1975 Tandem
1991 Tandem­Mips
2001 Tandem­Itanium
1975 Tandem T/TOS
1994 Tandem OSS (Unix)
2006 JSP­JSTL
2000 HTML 4
2008 HTML 5
1991
2006 Linux 2.4
2011 Linux 3.0
2001 MAC OS 10
2012 MAC OS 10.8
2009
2009 JSF 2.0
1997 WAP
2013 Vaadin 7
1970 DBMS
1978 RDMS
1979 Oracle
1997 Oracle ORDBMS
1994 Mysql
2004 DB4O
2001 HSQL
2005 H2
1980 OODMS
1988 Oracle RDBMS
1979 MVC
1980 OSI
1998 XML
1981 RPC
1996 DCOM
1997 RMI
1998 SOAP
2000 REST
2007 Cloud
2000 Ajax
1997 MVP
1987 Sybase RDBMS
1989 Microsoft SQL
1967 Object Oriented
1983 Internet
1970 Chat
1970 Enail
1991 WWW­3 Layer
2002 RIA
2002 Prevayler
1972 C
1972 SQL
1983 C++
2001 AspectJ
2001 C#
2003 Scala
1999 J2EE
2000 .NET
2001 Hibernate
2006 OpenJDK
2005 Harmony
1967 Simula
1968 BI
1980 BPMS
1970 Ecommerce
1984 Staroffice
1989 MS office1990 ERP
2000 OpenOffice
2006 Google Docs
2011 MS Off365
2000 RSA Public
1991 ISO­S. Engineering
1993 ISO­S. Process
1960 RFC
1950 Freesoftware
1970 BBS
1958 Lisp
1959 Cobol
2007 Clojure
2004 BPMN
2004 OODVS
2009 JSF 2.0
2002 Spring2000 Liferay
1991 MS Visual Basic
2004 Eclipse
1991 MS Power Builder
2012Win Phone 8
1985 MacApp
1995 Java
1996 Cocoa
1991 MS Visual Basic
1995 Wikis
1997 Google
1998 Opensource
1999 Sourceforge
2001 Wikipedia
2003 Linkedin
2004 Facebook
1990 WWW
1995 MS Visual Studio
1997 Netbeans
1995 Java
1995 PHP
1995 JavaScript
1997 UML
2012 Win 8, WinServer
2012 Linux U Unity
2012 Linux Android 4.1
2008 Hyper­V
Granted Obsolete
Old and Valid
Target
New Promissing
2009 Mongo DB
2007 Amazon EC2
2009 Windows Azure
2009 Google Apps Engine
2010 OpenStack
2006 Twitter
1999 RSS
2006 OpenUP
2001 OWASP & ISO­Security
1993 MSF
1993 EDI
2004 PCI
1990 Versant ObjecttDB
2007 Hadoop
2010 Maria DB
1980 DIS
1993 CORBA
2000 HLA
1998 Java 3D
1995 VRML
2004 Hypper Threading
1980 Small talk MVC
2004 Naked Objects
Figure 2
4 Results
We have been applying the technique of paradigm shifting in our projects the must representatives ones are:
"OODVS Frame Work", that constitute base for obtaining the Mexico National Innovation award for Information
technologies.
"Concept Frame Work" and "Share Center" our current leading efforts for building high value solutions.
4.1 Results from "Concept Framework" project
We manage to use one model instead of three and to avoid the principal physical and logical barriers while maintaining
a good concern separation and modularization.
The numbers of specialities (languages and tools) need was significantly reduced.
The main requirements was cover and must of the effort was a first time effort (framework).
Architecture Granted­Paradigms Reviewed Frameworks Reviewed Architecture
Overall Characterization
Different Models
Different Tools
Separation of Concerns
Different Models
Same Tools
Separation of Concerns
Same Model
Same Tools
Separation of Concerns
Crosscut Concerns

5. Presentation
Documents
HTML(1)
Objects
JScript(2)
Object Document Mappers
JSP(3)
Objects
Java(1), Vaadin(2)
Objects
Java(1),
Vaadin(2),
DBO(3),
AspectJ(4)
Application
Objects
Java(4), EJBs(5)
Objects
Java(1), Vaadin(2), DB4O(3)
Persistence
Relational Tables
SQL(5)
Object Relational Mappers
JPA(6)
Objects
Java(1),
DB4O(3)
Models 3 3 1
Specialities 6 3 4
Complexity 18 9 4
5 Conclusions
As simple at it seems this technique has proven to us to be of high value to helping shift our paradigms according our
goals.
References
[1] "Paradigm" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
[2] "OODVS Framework",
https://sc.openknowledge.mx/Concept/file/byUUID/Concept:44729187349921792/OodvsFramework.html
[3] "Concept Framework",
https://sc.openknowledge.mx/Concept/file/byUUID/Concept:44728873887432704/ConceptFramework.html
[4] "Share Center",
https://sc.openknowledge.mx/Concept/file/byUUID/Concept:44728987337293824/ShareCenter.html
[5] "Paradigm shifting", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
[6] "Buzz Word", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzzword
[7] "Object­Oriented Presentation Layer",
https://vaadin.com/gwt
[8] "Object­Oriented Persistence Layer", http://community.versant.com/documentation/reference/db4o­8.1/java/reference/
[9] "Aspect­Oriented Cross­cutting Concerns",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect­oriented_programming