It's plausible that a language could expose some general logic behind instruction-level parallelism and cache management — even register renaming — without being explicitly tied to the way one particular architecture does that. I have no idea how to design such a language, but from 10000 meters I think it could be done.

I think the author oversteps his case by suggesting that ILP is an abomination that exists to preserve the availability of C-like languages. In my experience, many algorithms seem to naturally lend themselves to ILP, and I often find myself wondering whether I have typed them in so that these five lines will in fact run simultaneously. One common flaw in critiques of the common C compiler model is that they all seem afflicted by a nostalgia for Lisp machines, when the space of unexplored possibilities is so much larger.