Urbit: a personal cloud computer

One, as we know from Church-Turing equivalence, lambda and infinitely many other models of computing have the same expressive power. That doesn't mean they have the same practical utility, though.

Lambda in its Lisp incarnation is actually a rather poor substrate for something like a Lisp machine, I think, because it doesn't layer very well. You can define quite a simple Lisp model, but when you want to turn it into a practical Lisp, you don't add another layer - you grow hair on top of the existing layer. You grow a little hair, you get Scheme; you grow a lot of hair, you get Common Lisp.

I've never seen a lambda model (Qi/Shen perhaps a partial exception, but even there the underlying model is not very simple) that layers a complex language on a simple kernel. I think this is because lambda defines abstractions like symbol tables and function calls, which are user-level language features, in the computational model. The bells and whistles get mixed up with the nice clean math.

Another example is the fact that a modern OS should present itself to the programmer as a single-level store, meaning effectively an ACID programming language in which every event is a transaction. So, you're not constantly moving data across an impedance mismatch from transient to persistent storage, each having its own very different type system and data model.

But, if you're building persistently stored data structures designed to snapshot efficiently and remain maintainable, you really want your data model to be acyclic and not require GC. This goes in a very different direction from almost all the dynamic language work of the last 50 years.

Or, for instance, if your system is designed to work and play well in a network world, it really ought to be able to be good at sending typed data over the network. And validating it when it gets to the other side. Your type system ought to be able to do the same job as an XML DTD or JSON schema or whatever. Well... this wasn't exactly a design requirement when people designed, say, Haskell.

I could go on - there's a lot of stuff like this that is built the way it is because it made very good sense in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. But the requirements really have changed, I think.

You don't think the average person would want to fly their own airplane if it were as easy as driving a car?

I'm looking for a virtual machine (or NaCl-like sandbox) which does this.

Edit: To anyone who downvoted me, could you please let me know why?

And the amount of possible simplicity is constrained by the problem you're trying to solve -- you can't manage to make a plane as simple as driving a car, because the car only has to navigate in two dimensions while the plane has to navigate in three. If a car stops, the car's just sitting there, whereas if a plane stops gravity is going to pull you down in a likely to be fatal incident. You can't make a plane as simple to use as a car without changing it into something other than a plane.

Most people don't enjoy driving. Presumably (for most people) flying would be just like driving - exciting, interesting, and liberating at first, but would eventually become a dull and boring chore.