&gt;<i>Programming languages are also part of the problem. We&#x27;ve wasted so much time reinventing the wheel, over and over again</i><p>That&#x27;s a good thing.<p>If we didn&#x27;t we&#x27;d still use stone or wooden wheels -- like in ancient times.<p>People say &quot;reinventing the wheel&quot; when in actuality it&#x27;s &quot;improving the wheel&quot;.<p>CL is not 60&#x27;s LISP, Rust is not C, C is not Algol, Haskell is not ML, and Go..., ok, Go is like Algol 68.<p>&gt;<i>I don&#x27;t know what form the next computing architecture will take, but I do know there will come a time when the notion of using a &#x27;programming language&#x27; to get things done will seem quaint.</i><p>This I feel is too hand-wavy (&quot;there must be a better way&quot;).<p>Programming language is sort of like math -- logical instructions.<p>The scientific underpinning of programming is algorithms. And those are expressed by programming languages.<p>We cannot really replace algorithms with anything else, like we cannot get rid of equations in math.<p>We might abstract them more (&quot;robot, write a program to do X for me&quot;) or less (some &quot;visual programming&quot; thing), but in the end, programming and algorithms are part and partcel with solving problems.