I long for bytecode

I long for the day of bytecode, where the world of computing is not crushed under the corpse of ARM and x86. The fools can still get their shitty games, and the big studios ruled by demographic numbers can give it to them regardless of architecture. Even the OS would be mostly bytecode in this dream, only the interpreter is native, allowing for seamless ports of any system to any machine. Of course, us real programmers can use native code directly and leave the heathens to their ultra-portable Angry Birds.

I would even settle for the JVM to do this (though I would reject Java), but .NET's CLR is much nicer. Anything would be better than dealing with the outdated shitstain x86 and it's even more disgusting hack, x64, for another thirty years.

>>13
You aren't listening to me god damn it. This is not about software you have the source too. Closed source is what is holding new architecture designs back. Fact of life: it's always going to exist.

Platform agnosticism is half the reason programming languages even exist.
Because it wouldn't need to be recompiled. Microsoft wouldn't have to be bothered to port (all of) Windows and Office to a different platform, so they would be happy. Game companies refuse to even talk about a game that's actively making them money, and being based on portable bytecode would save all their code. Same with all other big, boxed software makers. Because all that was saved, the people who actually buy computers would take a chance and buy a system with a better processor.

And even if it is custom software, or software they have the source to, the companies would much rather just buy another machine with similar specs than spend the money to update and port the code.

>>14
The bytecode would be standardized, so that the interpreter could be implemented regardless of the underlying processor (just like the definition of byte machine implies!).