@Maholmire can you please leave me in peace and not do this daily? I really do not want to interact with you and I do not want people to continuously ask me why I stopped interacting with you - for your benefit.
@lispi314@kaia@chjara > FFI > To get rid of C > Implying you can write programs without C shenanigans
Not gonna happen until Linux and a lot of near-mandatory system libraries reduces their C dependency to describe interfaces. (Also s-expressions are shit, just expose an API to the AST parser you want wild metaprogramming)
Holy crap… just no. And in terms of structure: I've never seen people so inept at understanding structures that don't map well to s-exp (XML for example) than lisp people.
> It is possible to generate C code from Lisp for the explicit purpose of creating bindings & callbacks.
Meaning you still get C shenanigans, you just added a carpet on top to make it look cleaner to your eyes, but it's not (so you risk technical debt).
@lispi314@kaia@chjara MathML is the same thing as shoving everything in s-expressions: Math cannot be efficiently represented in a tree of nodes, but people will still try hard to do it.
> By all means no new C software should be written save for that needed to help with its deprecation.
How do you use syscalls and ioctls on linux without parsing C at some point? OpenBSD even wants to require usage of the libc for syscalls. Most people will want to use PAM at some point for authentication, which is C-only. Etc, etc, … See why Java, Go, Rust, … link to the libc.