Great article, but does it answer the question it raised: Why has software evolution lagged behind?
Also, is the focus on parallel computing the only litmus to judge this as the downfall of every imperative programming language?
To answer the first question, we have to abandon our technical computing hats in favour of the philosopher's hat.
What went wrong with the promise of reusable objects? Whatever happened to 4GL? Why are frameworks confined to isolated corners of language evolution, far-removed from the domain problems faced by end-users?
Why, oh is every nerd developing an Order-Entry system from scratch? Why are nerds doing the same code again and again for decades in every conceivable new language (now FP).
You see, if we start accepting structural restrictions like those imposed by FP, then philosophically we should follow that maxim to its logical conclusion. Restrict to the point where we do not harm ourselves (by repeating).
Also, is the focus on parallel computing the only litmus to judge this as the downfall of every imperative programming language?
To answer the first question, we have to abandon our technical computing hats in favour of the philosopher's hat.
What went wrong with the promise of reusable objects? Whatever happened to 4GL? Why are frameworks confined to isolated corners of language evolution, far-removed from the domain problems faced by end-users?
Why, oh is every nerd developing an Order-Entry system from scratch? Why are nerds doing the same code again and again for decades in every conceivable new language (now FP).
You see, if we start accepting structural restrictions like those imposed by FP, then philosophically we should follow that maxim to its logical conclusion. Restrict to the point where we do not harm ourselves (by repeating).
Rant over. ;-)