insoluble

We often talk about how this or that technology, feature, or product ought to exist. Let's touch on the other end. What technologies, products, and features (including programming language features) would the world be better off not having?

For example, it could be argued that certain features promote bad habits or inhibit learning about more powerful or extensible features. In theory this phenomenon applies to products and technologies as well, as for example burning fossil fuels or using lead-based paint, to give some non-tech examples.

I just read an article saying that NASA's Apollo 11 "space program" source code was released to GitHub on July 07 2016. They say it was programmed in a variant of the Assembly programming language. From an image on the article, the source code appears to span many thousands of pages when printed on paper.

My question is, what is a good ball-park ratio for the average efficiency in terms of lines-of-code when comparing Assembly with a relatively modern language (and framework) such as C# with .NET, assuming both are well-written?

Naturally this question of line-count efficiency between languages depends on numerous very important factors, such as level of abstraction and redundancy, but surely there can be a ball-park range for what to expect in the real world with professional programmers of similar experience levels. I was unable to find good comparisons for Assembly versus current modern languages. My underlying question is how much smaller the Apollo 11 source code would be if written in a modern language and framework.