>>> A chip too far? Where is your solution Mr Larkin?
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/13/technology/microchips_copeland.fortun...

>>> Blowing in the wind, all blowing in the wind.

>> 1. A new programming language, accompanied with a new way of teaching
>> programming.

>That might help a bit. But there are a lot of very important legacy
>applications already out there. Like it or not  we are tied into the
>existing applications codebase.

>> 2. A new OS, which uses a nanokernel approach and wastes processors in
>> the name of reliability.

>Can't fault the idea of keeping the Ring0 protected kernel as small as
>possible, or giving users the least privileges needed to do their job.
>But wasting performance for reliablity though is never going to fly -
>not least because most times it would not have the desired effect.

>Hardware enforced memory protection for threads on a timesliced CPU can
>be made every bit as reliable as giving each one a physical CPU just a SMOP.

>> 3. Ultimately, a new multicore cpu architecture that exerts much more
>> hardware control over the things that programmers tend to screw up.

>You mean like enforcing bounds checking on array and pointer access?

>> It will take a long time to fix things, because the current computer
>> culture - academics, programmers, cpu makers, Microsoft - will fight
>> for its survival.

>Academics are a lot more sanguine about things than you seem to think.