> - You can have all the CPUs you want, but they're not going to speed up much. We've been at 3-4 GHz for well over a decade now. Parallelism in languages has i

> - You can have all the CPUs you want, but they're not going to speed up much. We've been at 3-4 GHz for well over a decade now. Parallelism in languages has improved quite a bit, but it's improved from "it's not the language's problem" to "we have some reasonable primitives now". Not to "as easy as sequential". Mostly correct but there are exceptions: Erlang/Elixir and Golang in particular make concurrent and parallel code extremely easy to write and 99% of what can go wrong is already taken care of for you. Rust makes pretty good strides as well, and OCaml 5.0, once stabilized, promises to give you an ML language with GC memory management and very good parallel primitives that its community will likely quickly develop further. It's super strange to me that most programmers actually refuse to acknowledge that there is such a thing as the right tool for the job (not talking about you, you obviously are more open-minded, judging by your comment). That seems to be the bane of the modern programming -- the people and their bias. A lot of us became wannabe council of elders. And I completely agree that non-Turing-complete technologies are extremely useful. I've been preaching for a configuration language that deliberately omits several important things (like passing functions around or recursion) so you can never hack a system through a malicious config. Alas it seems nobody cares until I sit down and write it... > - Why does the complexity of web pages seem to grow without bound, despite them not doing all that much more? Sigh. I'd like to know as well. Likely the newer generation are a bit spoiled and feel they can pile complexity on top of other complexity forever? Or, much more likely, nobody sticks around for a long time in their workplace and they are like "frak that, the next guy is gonna fix it"? Who knows. But it's indeed severely not okay.