I'm in danger of contradicting myself, after previously pointing out that x86 machine code is a high-level language, but this article claiming C is a not a low level language is bunk. C certainly has some problems, but it's still the closest language to assembly. This is obvious by the fact it's still the fastest compiled language. What we see is a typical academic out of touch with the real world.
The author makes the (wrong) observation that we've been stuck emulating the PDP-11 for the past 40 years. C was written for the PDP-11, and since then CPUs have been designed to make C run faster. The author imagines a different world, such as where CPU designers instead target something like LISP as their preferred language, or Erlang. This misunderstands the state of the market. CPUs do indeed supports lots of different abstractions, and C has evolved to accommodate this.
The author criticizes things like "out-of-order" execution which has lead to the Spectre sidechannel vulnerabilities. Out-of-order execution is necessary to make C run faster. The author claims instead that those resources should be spent on having more slower CPUs, with more threads. This sacrifices single-threaded performance in exchange for a lot more threads executing in parallel. The author cites Sparc Tx CPUs as his ideal processor.
But here's the thing, the Sparc Tx was a failure. To be fair, it's mostly a failure because most of the time, people wanted to run old C code instead of new Erlang code. But it was still a failure at running Erlang.
Time after time, engineers keep finding that "out-of-order", single-threaded performance is still the winner. A good example is ARM processors for both mobile phones and servers. All the theory points to in-order CPUs as being better, but all the products are out-of-order, because this theory is wrong. The custom ARM cores from Apple and Qualcomm used in most high-end phones are so deeply out-of-order they give Intel CPUs competition. The same is true on the server front with the latest Qualcomm Centriq and Cavium ThunderX2 processors, deeply out of order supporting more than 100 instructions in flight.
The Cavium is especially telling. Its ThunderX CPU had 48 simple cores which was replaced with the ThunderX2 having 32 complex, deeply out-of-order cores. The performance increase was massive, even on multithread-friendly workloads. Every competitor to Intel's dominance in the server space has learned the lesson from Sparc Tx: many wimpy cores is a failure, you need fewer beefy cores. Yes, they don't need to be as beefy as Intel's processors, but they need to be close.
Even Intel's "Xeon Phi" custom chip learned this lesson. This is their GPU-like chip, running 60 cores with 512-bit wide "vector" (sic) instructions, designed for supercomputer applications. Its first version was purely in-order. Its current version is slightly out-of-order. It supports four threads and focuses on basic number crunching, so in-order cores seems to be the right approach, but Intel found in this case that out-of-order processing still provided a benefit. Practice is different than theory.
As an academic, the author of the above article focuses on abstractions. The criticism of C is that it has the wrong abstractions which are hard to optimize, and that if we instead expressed things in the right abstractions, it would be easier to optimize.
This is an intellectually compelling argument, but so far bunk.
The reason is that while the theoretical base language has issues, everyone programs using extensions to the language, like "intrinsics" (C 'functions' that map to assembly instructions). Programmers write libraries using these intrinsics, which then the rest of the normal programmers use. In other words, if your criticism is that C is not itself low level enough, it still provides the best access to low level capabilities.
Given that C can access new functionality in CPUs, CPU designers add new paradigms, from SIMD to transaction processing. In other words, while in the 1980s CPUs were designed to optimize C (stacks, scaled pointers), these days CPUs are designed to optimize tasks regardless of language.
The author of that article criticizes the memory/cache hierarchy, claiming it has problems. Yes, it has problems, but only compared to how well it normally works. The author praises the many simple cores/threads idea as hiding memory latency with little caching, but misses the point that caches also dramatically increase memory bandwidth. Intel processors are optimized to read a whopping 256 bits every clock cycle from L1 cache. Main memory bandwidth is orders of magnitude slower.
The author goes onto criticize cache coherency as a problem. C uses it, but other languages like Erlang don't need it. But that's largely due to the problems each languages solves. Erlang solves the problem where a large number of threads work on largely independent tasks, needing to send only small messages to each other across threads. The problems C solves is when you need many threads working on a huge, common set of data.
For example, consider the "intrusion prevention system". Any thread can process any incoming packet that corresponds to any region of memory. There's no practical way of solving this problem without a huge coherent cache. It doesn't matter which language or abstractions you use, it's the fundamental constraint of the problem being solved. RDMA is an important concept that's moved from supercomputer applications to the data center, such as with memcached. Again, we have the problem of huge quantities (terabytes worth) shared among threads rather than small quantities (kilobytes).
The fundamental issue the author of the the paper is ignoring is decreasing marginal returns. Moore's Law has gifted us more transistors than we can usefully use. We can't apply those additional registers to just one thing, because the useful returns we get diminish.
For example, Intel CPUs have two hardware threads per core. That's because there are good returns by adding a single additional thread. However, the usefulness of adding a third or fourth thread decreases. That's why many CPUs have only two threads, or sometimes four threads, but no CPU has 16 threads per core.
You can apply the same discussion to any aspect of the CPU, from register count, to SIMD width, to cache size, to out-of-order depth, and so on. Rather than focusing on one of these things and increasing it to the extreme, CPU designers make each a bit larger every process tick that adds more transistors to the chip.
The same applies to cores. It's why the "more simpler cores" strategy fails, because more cores have their own decreasing marginal returns. Instead of adding cores tied to limited memory bandwidth, it's better to add more cache. Such cache already increases the size of the cores, so at some point it's more effective to add a few out-of-order features to each core rather than more cores. And so on.
The question isn't whether we can change this paradigm and radically redesign CPUs to match some academic's view of the perfect abstraction. Instead, the goal is to find new uses for those additional transistors. For example, "message passing" is a useful abstraction in languages like Go and Erlang that's often more useful than sharing memory. It's implemented with shared memory and atomic instructions, but I can't help but think it couldn't better be done with direct hardware support.
Of course, as soon as they do that, it'll become an intrinsic in C, then added to languages like Go and Erlang.