> How can we marry the fine details of the computer with higher level tasks? You don't want to, generally. Details are for the low-level grunts - your compiler

> How can we marry the fine details of the computer with higher level tasks? You don't want to, generally. Details are for the low-level grunts - your compilers and operating systems, the "essential workers" of software. High-level just executes the business logic, with no care about how much needs to happen behind the scenes to make it's job possible. Your cashier may have the potential to be a great executive, but since his job doesn't require thinking about quarterly earnings, why would he express that potential to you? Conversely, what benefit does having the executive know the POS system inside and out have, when he will never touch a cash register? The article does remind me that I would like to see a low-level language with a simple syntax focused on the composition of a well-defined set of powerful primitive operations (like APL and it's descendents). The terseness and readability of this style have many of the strengths of assembly, without the high code volume, thousands of instructions, and machine-specificity.