Software has been riding on immense hardware improvement over decades. This has delayed ways to build products that are more effective, because you could cheaply rent yet another machine on the cloud and call it a day.
But hardware isn't getting better at the pace it used to, and costs are spiraling out of control. Software must become better at managing resources. Do more with less.
How? We can look at ways in which real world businesses maximize their effectiveness. Look at Starbucks! They have cashiers accepting orders, and baristas delivering them. That isn't rocket science; it's concurrency.
Would you be surprised to learn that modern programming languages aren't built for concurrency? It's as if English didn't have a syntax for asking questions! Concurrency is very much around us in real life, but Python pretends that things always happen One Damned Thing After Another.
Not all hope is lost. A few years ago, asyncio was introduced into the standard library to reboot concurrent programming. However, we're still getting used to it. It's weird! There are many things that we need to learn, and double check, and test and ultimately fix.
But what if none of that was the case? What if what we were missing was not Yet Another Standard, This Time By Guido, but a syntax?
I like my programming languages to have a semantics for concurrency, the way I like my English with a semantics for questions. And you?