Certainly many kinds of apps (e.g. web- and GUI- and disk- or DB-based) won't care if Dennard scaling has essentially stopped on a uniprocessor. But in other d

Certainly many kinds of apps (e.g. web- and GUI- and disk- or DB-based) won't care if Dennard scaling has essentially stopped on a uniprocessor. But in other domains uniprocess speed is still their life's blood, like graphics, AR/VR, data-parallel number crunching, secure computing, and increasingly I suspect, non-deepNN forms of AI (like search). As clock rates fall further behind the venerable curve of CPU clock rate doubling, I too wonder how long the 10x to 30x slowdown obliged by interpreted languages can last. It's lovely to write code a bit faster using REPL. But if that code's slow runtime or likelier troubles with portability or error recovery diminish its utility, then that bargain is Faustian. I see some of that already after talking to a few startups who are in need low level coding abilities. These days there seems to be a deficit of folks with proficiency in fare like the GCC toolchain, that is, at the levels of assembler, binary objects and libraries, linkers, and device-drivers. I wonder, given the proclivity of CS academia for the past 20 years to ground their instructional SW concepts mostly at a higher levels than binary (like reliance on libraries, OOPL objects, and pseudocode), if this canny valley is likely to grow into a real obstruction -- esp. now that we likely can afford it least.