That's a good thing.
If we didn't we'd still use stone or wooden wheels -- like in ancient times.
People say "reinventing the wheel" when in actuality it's "improving the wheel".
CL is not 60's LISP, Rust is not C, C is not Algol, Haskell is not ML, and Go..., ok, Go is like Algol 68.
>I don't know what form the next computing architecture will take, but I do know there will come a time when the notion of using a 'programming language' to get things done will seem quaint.
This I feel is too hand-wavy ("there must be a better way").
Programming language is sort of like math -- logical instructions.
The scientific underpinning of programming is algorithms. And those are expressed by programming languages.
We cannot really replace algorithms with anything else, like we cannot get rid of equations in math.
We might abstract them more ("robot, write a program to do X for me") or less (some "visual programming" thing), but in the end, programming and algorithms are part and partcel with solving problems.