In this post, I presented the idea as if it was "easy", but Knuth seemed to be proposing it as a rather large undertaking. I skipped some parts of his original prompt for brevity, but since you bring this up, I can summarize a bit more here. I also found a copy of the address in PDF form online [0], if you want to read the whole thing. This is from the last few pages.
He compared this task to researchers who documented every square meter of a large tract of land to see how different factors affected plant growth. He also mentioned a study of 250,000 individual trees in a rain forest. It's not supposed to be easy.
Yes, we've doubled many times since then, but our power to analyze large piles of data has also improved dramatically.
> I'm not really sure that this exercise would be worth it today
I think it really depends on what kind of system you are going to analyze. He was probably thinking of big systems running a school or business back then. These days there are just so many more types of machines. Most are probably not interesting at all. Maybe some kind of life-or-death devices, though?
> correctness is more important than performance
One neat thing about this kind of lowest-level analysis is that you can probably check on both at the same time.
[0] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/03043975919...