[rplacd]

"Any one that won't let Bedrock's tools and clients complain" is the answer - I know nothing about what the author's hinting wrt his future plans, but my impression's that the current release's a fairly light layer of mostly shell-scripted userland tools with only one needing compilation ("bedrock chroot"); Kernighan would be proud. (Those who treat the Unix Haters' Handbook as a source of design maxims would simply conclude a runtime built upon an introspectable and introcessionable language would obviate the need to marvel at the engineering involved here. The initial effort involved here, to be fair, is orders of magnitude less.)

[ParadigmComplex]

> "Any one that won't let Bedrock's tools and clients complain" is the answer

Spot on.

> I know nothing about what the author's hinting wrt his future plans, but my impression's that the current release's a fairly light layer of userland tools with only one needing compilation ("bedrock chroot")

Sadly we're adding additional userland tools which will need to be compiled in the next release. However, we're aiming to stick as close to the "fairly light layer of userland tools" description as we can while ensuring the core idea works without issue.

> Kernighan would be proud

I think that is one of the kindest things anyone has ever said about me. Thank you!

[Tobu]

introcessionable? Google doesn't know that word, you get to define it.

[rplacd]

Gah - typo - "intercessionable" is the word; I've taken its use from the the Art of the Metaobject Protocol. (Thanks for the double-checking.) It's a usage that doesn't bear much relation to its others, but it's fairly easy to define: if introspection queries internal state, intercession changes it.