I agree with the conclusion, but nothing about the arguments to arrive at that conclusion sound true at all. Hardware does not have a Stockholm Syndrome. Makin

I agree with the conclusion, but nothing about the arguments to arrive at that conclusion sound true at all. Hardware does not have a Stockholm Syndrome. Making Chips that are better at things people use these Chips for is the correct thing to do. The CPU architecture is relatively static because making hardware for software which does not exist is a terrible idea. Look at Itanium, a total failure. The C paradigm which the author bemoans never was the only one, but it was good, it worked well and that is why it is the default to this day. It is also good enough to emulate message passing and parallelism, it is totally non-obvious that throwing out this paradigm is in any way beneficial over the current status quo. There is no reason for the abstractions we want to also to be the abstractions the hardware uses.