"... it will have to go against the very principle of competition between processor manufacturers, and the very reason why processors of different manufacturers have radically different architectures. Also the fact that manufacturers are constantly upgrading the architecture would make almost impossible to keep a "standard" for such binary language."
You could take "Technology Independent Machine Interface" and expand it across manufacturers and architectures.
The future of humanity is greatly tied to STEM. English is the best language for STEM, given its huge dictionary, and awesome ability at creating new words. Therefore, Unicode is unnecessary. Let's go back to ASCII.
I know what these things are, but they have nothing to do with my proposed ultimate computer language. I frequently have difficulty explaining my ideas. When I have some time for this, I'll put together a hypothetical code example, and post it here.
In the meantime, consider: "What is the connection between computer language and thought? To what degree does our choice of how we express software change the way we think about the problem?"
"A single universal programming language is not desirable. You can't have a language that is an optimal fit for every use-case: the same language isn't going to work well for systems programming as for chewing up logfiles. You can make a language that does both, but you can't make one that does both as well as a language purpose-built for either."
I disagree. Didn't you (or someone else here) recently say that everything should be programmed in a DSL? Well, each DSL could be generated from a language that does everything, such as IBM's PL/I.
Anyway, my proposed ultimate computer language would need to have hardware designed specifically for it in order for its programs to run efficiently. When you are designing both the hardware and the software simultaneously, you have the opportunity to build a language suited for all uses.
I (actually, for real, no lie) program in BaCon. It's a BASIC-to-C transpiler, made by Peter van Eerten, the creator of GTK-server. Version 0.1 came out in 2009. For the last few years, a core group of devotees has been assisting him in its maintenance and in keeping it moving forward. Every year, he puts out several new releases.
For my use cases, including GAGOOT, I don't see the need for anything more complex, at least not on the server side. I don't care that BaCon is not popular. If I had to guess, I would say that less than a thousand people, globally, are using it for anything interesting, and that's just fine by me, because it's mature enough and small enough to be eminently hackable.
I am the founder of GAGOOT. Even though GAGOOT is a commercial project, I am not here to spam people with requests for money. Rather, I would like to have conversations about the various aspects of society and technology that concern GAGOOT, for the purpose of being better able to flesh out the details over at GAGOOT's website, as I am only just now attempting to comprehensively talk about my ideas in public. https://gagoot.com