Another round of speculative-execution vulnerabilities

> I would call this semantic of any von-Neumann computer architecture that exists nowadays. [...] In fact, this is the paradigm of the Turing Machine.

I reject this outright. There is an absolute world of wonderful compute models in between a turning machine and C or a PDP11. Many of them are von neumann machines, even. This should be clear from the fact that the key problem of the C model is that it's hard to model formally (see e.g. the size of the C memory model specification), while the turing machine was purpose designed for formal modelling.

Let me just give some examples:

For a very soft start, we can look at something like the 6502, which is generally pretty boring apart from treating he first 256 bytes of memory specially. Largely because of this, it is not supported upstream in any of the big C compilers.

Then we can look at something like Itanium, in which bundles of instructions are executed in parallel and can not see the effects of each other, along with things like explicit branch prediction, speculation and software pipelining.

This is actually pretty similar to modern CPUs, except instead of having it explicitly encoded in the instruction stream, they try to re-derive that information at runtime, often by just guessing.

Then we have things like GPUs, which have multiple tiers of shared memory, primarily work with masks instead of branches. Although they are slowly becoming more C-like as people seek to target them with C and C++ code.

There's also a whole bunch of architectures like ARM CHERI and many with memory segmentation, where addresses and pointers are not the same thing.

We can also talk about various other things like lisp machines, Mill, Transmeta, EDGE and many more things I'm forgetting.

Then even further asea, you can find things like FPGAs, which are programmed using a functional specification of behavior much like TLA+. (The current fad is, of course, trying to run C on them, to limited success)

Now if you say "But most of these are all obscure architectures nobody uses", then yes that's the point. It's because they don't look enough like K&R's PDP11. Itanium is far from the only innovative architecture that C killed and as primarily a hardware person, that's deeply frustrating.