增强现实。这还没有真正流行起来，但从想法来看，我认为它是巨大的，从能够在地面上画虚拟箭头来帮助你找到目的地，到用有用的信息或审美幻想装饰你周围的一切。

想象一下，你的手机在房间的另一头响了起来，你看着它，上面会跳出一个信息泡泡，告诉你是谁打来的。那该有多酷?AR将给我们思考技术和与技术互动的方式带来巨大的变化。

鬼屋可能也会变得更加可怕。

我还想提到用于脑机接口的脑电图，但显然这是在20世纪70年代首次发明的。

多代理系统。

你可以回到分布式人工智能的根源，我认为仍然可以安全地呆在80年代。

多智能体系统有很多组成部分，有很多研究涉及语言行为或合作，所以很难指出并说“看，这里，这是不同的，创新的和重要的!”但我还是会试试的。: -)

我认为信念-欲望-意图模型尤其值得注意。智能体在内部构建了世界的模型。他们有特定的愿望或目标，并制定计划，如何与他们所知道的世界互动，以实现这些目标，从而形成意图。

或者打个比方，电影《创》(Tron)中的角色对他们周围的世界是如何运作的有一定的了解。他们不了解整个世界，他们可能会对世界的某些部分产生误解。但他们有愿望和目标，他们提出了进一步实现目标的计划。如果你看过《创》，我相信你会有类似的感觉。

它还没有对计算机产生太大的影响。但是，你看，那些对计算机产生影响的东西似乎需要几十年的时间。参见:OOP, GC，字节码编译。

X.500和X.500系列标准(大约1988年)。虽然x.500标准的灵感来自于几十年前的电信标准，但它们具有重要意义，因为它们为LDAP/AD的广泛使用以及我们目前使用的x.509证书铺平了道路。

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.

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。

我没有资格在一般意义上回答这个问题，但仅限于计算机编程?并不多。

为什么?我思考这个问题已经有一段时间了，我认为我们缺少两样东西:历史感和客观评价我们所创造的一切的方法。并非所有情况都是这样，但大体上是这样。

For history, I think it's just something not emphasized enough in popular writing or computer science programs. Take language features, for example. A canonical source might be HOPL, but it's definitely not common knowledge among programmers to be able to mark the point in time or in which language a feature like GC or closures first appeared. And of course after that there's knowledge of progression over time: how has OOP changed since Simula? Compare and contrast our sense of history with that of other fields like maybe political science or philosophy.

至于判断，这确实是我们寻求成功的客观衡量标准的失败。给定foobar，它以什么可衡量的方式改进了编程行为中的某些方面，其中foobar是任何设计模式，敏捷方法，TDD等等。我们有没有试过测量这个?我们到底想测量什么?正确性，程序员的生产力，代码的易读性等等?如何?软件工程确实应该着手解决这些问题，但我还没有看到。