Here's an idea: just go and create a language that does everything right. Then release it, and you'll be worshiped until long after you die. Oh wait, no you won't, you will be flabbergasted by the sheer amount of rotten tomatoes thrown at you for doing things wrong. No matter what you do, other people have different needs and preferences, and they will tear your work to pieces.
Yes, Python has a legacy. It's slow. But it's really fast to write a python program that can do something you'll need much more time to write in another language. It's an extremely powerful language. For me the most annoying part is packaging/distribution. That's a real mess at the moment.
I have played a bit with real-time programming in Python, and in my experience there is no sane way to do it in Windows (I expect you were running it in that OS since you start from VB6). If anyone has any tips & tricks to add here, please feel free. I have a feeling that the problem was in the Windows scheduler. Possibly there are Windows specific API's to have more fine-grained control over execution, but by default if you e.g. sleep for 1 ms you return 15+ms later.
Under Linux, the performance was much more predictable, and things really work very well if you start running with the SCHED_FIFO scheduler. You can also take control of (disable) your garbage collection if you know what you're doing.
NO and NO2 (aka NOx) are hazardous and turn into acid in your lungs.
You can't be depressed when you're dead...
Turntide's basic innovation is a software-controlled motor, or switch reluctance motor, that uses precise pulses of energy instead of a constant flow of electricity.
That's called PWM.
"We're pulsing in precise amounts of current just at the times when you need the torque..."
Field oriented control or direct drive already do that.
"It's software-defined hardware."
Let's add something buzzword-sounding, even though we don't understand what it even means.
“Our mission is to replace all of the motors in the world,” Morris said.
That's directed at investors.
They are comparing their technology - and let's assume it is new technology even though they don't prove it - to dumb AC motors that run directly from the grid. Meanwhile, I've been working for years on software to drive motors using field oriented control. The software continuously calculates how to apply the currents to get maximum torque per ampere. I'm not making any claim that this is innovative. This is well known and exists for quite a while. If they want to compare their technology to FOC, then it would be fair. But please don't compare your brilliant new technology to the dumbest way to control a motor.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson