[razighter777]

yep and and it forces every application to deal with the C FFI. It's beautiful in linux that I can access the full kernel API from an int 0x80/syscall instruction + a few register loads without having to link against crap. I can write a simple cat utility in a dozen or so lines of assembly.

[freestanding]

FFI is a different term. i called LIBC bloatware because it comes with many stuff that is not needed and things that are not appropriate for the system API layer, like memory allocator, string primitives etc. it also has an old style naming, like_this_one_supposed_to_be_nice or whtabthis1?

windows's NTDLL (at least early versions) naming is much better and the layer is much thiner, the problem is that it is "undocumented". also its rigid portability, while libc binding makes NIX software non-portable. NT also has syscalls through the interrupt btw.

[matheusmoreira]

You might enjoy my work on the lone lisp language. I got rid of the libc and implemented an entire interpreter with nothing but Linux system calls. Been working on it and blogging about it for about 3 years now.

http://github.com/lone-lang/lone/

[freestanding]

ye, i see.. strange choice though "lisp". i would organize memory allocator and syscalls into a separate library, like here https://codeberg.org/determin1st/sm-c-base so you kinda have libc-substitute. also your memory allocator is kinda primitive for the runtime, better to steal that one, its heap-based with groups. syscalls look almost the same, not lone enough, kek.