[jcranmer]

> 1. Backwards compatibility with existing libc. (Maybe pick musl)

Honestly, that ought to be a non-goal. We already know that POSIX often enforces models that we don't want--filesystem permissions and the fork model are two good examples of things that are broken. So why start with "implement POSIX"?

[writepub]

The backwards compatibility isn't a testament for POSIX's merit. Sure, please introduce better, safer paradigms whenever you set standards, but enabling legacy software to run immediately is a great value proposition.

Also, goading legacy maintainers to adopt the newer, safer paradigms is likely more effective if you show them the traction the new platform is gaining

[wahern]

POSIX doesn't mandate fork, that's why it invented posix_spawn.

[Crinus]

POSIX != C and from what i understand from the official docs, they already have a (musl derived, even) C library.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

The C stdlib is so married to POSIX they may as well be the same thing.

[pjmlp]

Actually no, go read ISO C and compare it with POSIX expectations.

[saagarjha]

…on UNIX systems. C is still a thing for other platforms e.g. embedded where POSIX is not a thing.