From my point of view, Tannenbaum's critique is basically that RPC is an exceedingly leaky abstraction. I don't think very much has changed in the state of the

From my point of view, Tannenbaum's critique is basically that RPC is an exceedingly leaky abstraction. I don't think very much has changed in the state of the art to address that point: you still need to understand that your arguments will need to be marshaled (which restricts what types make sense in languages that support pointers, references etc), you still need to deal with exceptions that result from the RPC mechanism as opposed to business logic, you still need to worry about whether those exceptions mean the procedure completed, or not, or when it might've failed, which forces you to structure the code for idempotency and so on.