[slightlycuban]

I feel the premise of "the OS as a Language" is missing a very critical point: our common definition of what "a computer is" has changed drastically in the intervening years.

Take a close look at those early computers. It is easy to ask "why do we even need an OS" when we don't have extra things like USB, hard drives, or RAM (it's all just storage anyway). What was once called "a computer" is now known as "a processor."

Even within the CPU itself we find layers of abstraction: caches, interpreters, even out-of-order execution! Just because you write assembler today, doesn't mean the processor is going to do exactly what you specified.

Some of these abstractions should be questioned and challenged, such as the CISC instruction set I alluded to above. But we should remember _why_ these abstractions are there in the first place, instead of blindly questioning (or accepting) how things work.