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 Anything would be better than dealing with the outdated shitstain x86 and it's even more disgusting hack, x64, for another thirty years.

>>16
Because a standard machine language would still require a recompile, which software companies loath to do. Besides that, it might not be best for the architecture that it's built on. Imagine if a quantum computer had to use the same standard instruction set that modern computers use. It would be terrible.

Again, it wouldn't be for all software, just end-user, software that's bought from walmart in a box. Everything that doesn't really need to take advantage of everything: office apps, First Person Shooter #1291, Facebook Status Checker, etc....

All the real code that's actually worth programming and using could be compiled natively.

>>19
non-problem
Non-problem? We are still stuck with outdated crap like x86, which Intel has pretty much stretched to the limit, and no one can even think of making something outside of x86 or ARM (unless you want to go for the 20 users who use MIPS) because of the stupid requirement of binary compatibility.

Emulators already exist and do everything this could hope to achieve.
Emulation, standard bytecode interpreter, whatever. Just built into the OS somewhere that it would be usable on any architecture and you can call it what you want.