C descriptions of the OS interface API... Ok - I get that. But, there is a system call interface. int 0x80, syscall. Now, these can be wrapped, and the result

C descriptions of the OS interface API... Ok - I get that. But, there is a system call interface. int 0x80, syscall. Now, these can be wrapped, and the result exposed in a completely different way. But that is the definition. If its "C" on one side and "C" on the other... well, ok then! I though Linux had vDSOs to allow direct "ABI" calls for performance reasons.... utilizing that will force a certain "C-ish" look. In turn, that can be wrapped. None of this changes quickly. Heck. CP/M-80 had "CALL 5" with registers a certain way. Wasn't "C" by any stretch! Because the C (POSIX, mostly) "API" is stable and available, we tend to use it. Wasn't always the case -- after all, FORTRAN I/O was all the rage back in the 60s (cf SNOBOL4). If (whatever) programming system wants to avail itself of the C infrastructure, it is certainly free to do so. Stop the endless whinging about C! Why C? It is the only language in its class that works from Z80 to my Thinkpad.