I think we need two breakthroughs (maybe three): 1. Less code. Operating systems have become obscenely bloated and restrictive. There is an enormous amount of

I think we need two breakthroughs (maybe three): 1. Less code. Operating systems have become obscenely bloated and restrictive. There is an enormous amount of power in the hardware we run our stuff on these days but you can't even touch it as a programmer anymore. 2. Powerful proof assistants and code synthesis. I love low-level programming but even the most hardcore, brilliant people I've met can easily introduce show-stopping security flaws into software without realizing it. It turns out that programming is hard and without rigorous models and proofs humans are really poor at understanding programs. We naturally hand-wave away details which get us most of the way there but these are discrete systems and details matter a lot. As for testing... I agree, unit tests are often insufficient but probably the lowest bar you could convince typical industry software developers to hurdle to prove the correctness of their programs. Even then, as the author notes, they will come kicking and screaming with their opinions. There are far better options and strategies but as soon as you mention property testing or formalization you'll lose about 90% of the room so you have to pick your battles. The trouble is that most startups are motivated to accidentally stumble upon a market niche and in this day and age that often means, "something with computers." They're not in it to write reliable, robust software that is efficient and performs well on a target platform. They're writing code that they can cash out on and never see again. Very different world. The final breakthrough we need is to fund research labs again. Technology isn't inevitable and civilizations in the past have lost the ability to build and maintain it. We shouldn't let that happen again if we can help it.