I have read through the comments already posted and the comments from the previous HN discussion linked also. I can’t help but feel like I got something complet

I have read through the comments already posted and the comments from the previous HN discussion linked also. I can’t help but feel like I got something completely different from this article than everyone else. I am convinced that Chisnall used the ‘C is not a Low-Level Language’ title as click bait. The actual point of the article is to push the view that the x86 ISA, which according to him, is structured the way it is due purely to the desire to make the massive amount of existing C code run faster. His argument is essentially that ‘low-level’ programmers are not delusional, but are purposely being deluded by chip manufacturers. C, and x86 assembly, according to The article are not low level because they have only a passing relevance to the actual architecture of modern CPUs. Chisnall then goes on to argue that a low level language would require an ISA that presents a clearer picture of the actual architecture and would be geared for performance given the actual functionality of the CPU. He then bats around several features that could be a part of an ISA for a multi core, hierarchical memory, pipelined chip. His references to alternate memory models, changes in register structure and amount, a push for immutability and other features to adapt the ISA to reflect what would constitute actual performant code. I’m all for his vision, it seems like there could be an x86 ISA translation layer or a portion of cores dedicated to maintaining X86 compatibility l, while transitioning to a new ISA. In fact, just have a new ISA be the target the CPU reducers x86 to and also expose that underlying ISA. But as said elsewhere in the thread, it’s been tried before and it hasn’t worked yet.