[jasode]

>> It's impossible to do graphics in pure C, so what are the alternatives

> I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. [...] , but you can do it all in C

If you trace the actual context of the conversation from ggp (doubtfuluser - "SDL is not 1000 lines anymore") to gp (shric - "pure C") ... it is clear that "pure C" was just an imprecise and shorthand alternative to saying the more verbose "pure ISO C Standard C with no extra external libraries such as SDL". (I.e. https://www.iso-9899.info/wiki/The_Standard ... has <stdio.h> and console printf() builtin there are no but no graphics and audio primitives)

But people just quickly type things out that seem obvious in a particular discussion e.g. "pure C" ... but can't foresee 4d chess moves ahead in how others will misinterpret phrases like that, and then the pedantic correction guns come out blazing.

<pedantic>But SDL _is_ "pure C".</pedantic> Yes, yes... I know. But one can just read gp's use of "pure C" with charity to see what he was trying to communicate.

[cv5005]

Since FILE io is part if standard C I guess you could do a plan9-style interface where you fopen("framebuffer"); and fwrite() means writing a pixel value to the screen. Since io is always implementation defined anyway, it wouldnt be any less portable than when you do printf("some string") and 'expects to see a string somewhere'.

[Y_Y]

Perhaps you're responding to the wrong person? I didn't think or write that GGP didn't know any of this. I was (clearly, I thought) considering the idea that someone might take such a position.

I wouldn't even mention this, except that you've expressed a interest in avoiding misinterpretation.

[spookie]

You can do graphics in pure C though. Really, file i/o is all you need for anything. Anything.