RAID(1988)。

可以说，这只是多年前错误修正代码的应用，但可以说，计算机科学中的一切都可以简化为基本的数学，这已经存在了几千年。

声明性编程。

1979年，“计算机程序”势在必行。程序员应该指导编译器做什么和怎么做。(N1)

今天,ASP。NET WebForms和WPF程序员经常在不知道或不关心它将如何实现的情况下编写代码。维基百科还有其他不那么主流的例子。此外，所有sgml派生的“标记”语言都是声明性的，我怀疑1979年的许多程序员是否能预测到它们在30年后的重要性或普遍性。

尽管声明式编程的概念在1980年之前就存在了(参见这篇1975年的论文)，但它的发明是在1985年Caml的引入(有争议)或1990年Haskell的引入(争议较少)时出现的。从那时起，声明式编程越来越受欢迎。而且，当大规模多核处理器最终到来时，我们都将成为声明式程序员。

-- 注: 我不能直接证明这一点，因为1979年我还是个胎儿。 从其他答案来看，人们似乎混淆了概念和发明。达·芬奇构想了直升机，但他没有发明它。这个问题是关于计算机发明的。 请不要在评论中提到Prolog (rel. 1975)，除非你真的用它开发了一个应用程序。

I'd say the biggest trend is an ever increasing lack of location dependence and pervasiveness. An interesting philosophical exercise these days is to count the computers in you immediate area. They're everywhere desktops, keyboards, microwaves, radios, televisions, cell phones etc... My grandmother computer is illiterate however her life is as infested with small computers as everyone else's. She can make a call to me from the middle of an empty field. I can then answer that call zipping down the highway.

电视管盒

飞行汽车和悬浮滑板。哦，等等，那些还没有被发明出来。但到2015年，我们必须拥有它们。否则《回到未来2》就是个弥天大谎!

回答“为什么新思想会消亡”和“如何应对”这两个问题?

I suspect a lot of the lack of progress is due to the massive influx of capital and entrenched wealth in the industry. Sounds counterintuitive, but I think it's become conventional wisdom that any new idea gets one shot; if it doesn't make it at the first try, it can't come back. It gets bought by someone with entrenched interests, or just FAILs, and the energy is gone. A couple examples are tablet computers, and integrated office software. The Newton and several others had real potential, but ended up (through competitive attrition and bad judgment) squandering their birthrights, killing whole categories. (I was especially fond of Ashton Tate's Framework; but I'm still stuck with Word and Excel).

怎么办呢?首先想到的是Wm。莎士比亚的建议:“让我们杀了所有的律师。”但恐怕他们现在装备太精良了。实际上，我认为最好的选择是找到某种开源计划。它们似乎比其他选择更好地保持可访问性和增量改进。但是这个行业已经变得足够大了，所以某种有机的合作机制是必要的。

I also think that there's a dynamic that says that the entrenched interests (especially platforms) require a substantial amount of change - churn - to justify continuing revenue streams; and this absorbs a lot of creative energy that could have been spent in better ways. Look how much time we spend treading water with the newest iteration from Microsoft or Sun or Linux or Firefox, making changes to systems that for the most part work fine already. It's not because they are evil, it's just built into the industry. There's no such thing as Stable Equilibrium; all the feedback mechanisms are positive, favoring change over stability. (Did you ever see a feature withdrawn, or a change retracted?)

关于SO的另一个讨论线索是臭鼬工厂综合症(参考:Geoffrey Moore):在大型组织中，真正的创新几乎总是(90%以上)出现在自发出现的未经授权的项目中，这些项目完全由个人或小团队的主动性推动(通常会受到正式的管理等级的反对)。所以:质疑权威，反抗体制。