These two statements are in no way equivalent.
I see what GP was complaining about. Even your opening para graph contains a fair bit of confusion. It reads like you are suggesting imperative languages were succeeded by object oriented, which were succeeded by functional in 'generations' - which is already incorrect on a couple of fundamental levels - and now the time is "ripe" for a "new paradigm" called declarative. Which is a language classification that has been around since nearly the beginning (first thing it makes me think of is Prolog, e.g. 1970s). So is this new or old?
This followed by a couple of pretty silly sounding assertions "almost no bugs" "10:1 reduction in life-cycle costs" which unsurprisingly are not supported.
Then we have the last sentence "For many graphical interactive or client/server applications, you can replace the entire development stack with one relatively simple tool.". Isn't that what you really want to convey?
When you get off on the wrong foot like that it's not hard to see why you've had some of the responses you have had. If you replaced the entire first paragraph with that last sentence you'd be far better off; the rest is poor communication, just getting in your own way.