Interesting article, but I think that the basic premise, that it's "bizarre" that we're still using concepts developed 50+ years ago, is a bit naive. To give an analogy from a different engineering field, the basics of rocketry and space travel have been conceptually almost completely developed almost 100 years ago. Multistage rockets, orbital stations, etc. Should it be considered bizarre that we still use those same concepts and mechanisms to fly into space? I don't think so. People had figured out an optimal (sometimes the best or only possible) method to do something and we're using it. Sometimes a better idea isn't possible because a better method can't exist. Some ideas are simply timeless.

One of those ideas, I believe, is expression of programs as text. It wasn't even a distinct idea, it's just the most efficient, natural way to express algorithms. You can't get around the fundamental mathematical fact that you need a formal symbolic system to express algorithms, i.e. you need a language. Until we gain the ability to directly interface our brains with computers we'll need to express language in written symbols, and even then I doubt we could get away without text for cognitively expensive activities such as programming (because of limitations of our working memory, etc.). "Lines of text" are anything but limiting.

What the article says are some drawbacks of operating systems I don't think are drawbacks at all. Having the OS lying to programs so that they don't have to know irrelevant details of the machine is a really good thing.

> But when it comes to what the machine is actually doing, why not just run one ordinary program and teach it new functions over time?

What?! You mean like one monolithic piece of code doing everything ranging from memory management to email and multimedia? I must be missing something, am I stupid and just don't understand the proposal?

> Why persist for 50 years the fiction that every distinct function performed by a computer executes independently in its own little barren environment?

Because it's a good idea, it reduces complexity for the function (program) in question.

> A righteous operating system should be a programming language.

Like we had with some early PCs where you essentially had a BASIC interpreter for an OS? That concept got replaced because it was a horrible way for humans to do actual work instead of dicking around all day with toy programs.

> Let’s do some old-school hacking on our new-school hardware — like the original TX-0 hackers, in assembly, from the ground up — and work towards a harmonious world where there is something new in software systems for the first time since 1969.

While I have nothing against assembly (to quote Michael Abrash: "I happen to like heroic coding."), first, I find the idea of regressing to old methods of producing programs to yield new ways of computing a little strange, and second, there's a good reason assembly isn't used unless necessary--it's a horribly unproductive way to solve problems. Unless the assembly in question is Lisp. ;) Or Haskell. So if we're dreaming, let's dream all the way--we need pure functional computing machines, not just "better mouse traps".