> It sounds like you're talking about using libraries as if it was a bad thing.
I don't see the relationship... how do you make such a leap?
> Where do you think "off-the-shelf" stuff comes from?
I worked on proprietary projects that eventually went public domain. So, I can tell you where off-the-shelf comes from from personal experience. Proprietary in-house tools have the benefit of not having to deal with many things that an off-the-shelf tool would have to deal because they can choose the kind of hardware to run on, the kind of supporting libraries, their versions and combinations to use, the kind of developer tools to support and so on. off-the-shelf tools, in order to be successful must cover a much wider area of ecosystem in order to be relevant.
Here to give you a better example: C doesn't have its own concurrency primitives, no concurrency model etc. But, you could build an extension, let's call it CC to have some sort of concurrency based on pthreads library. If, for your internal needs, you only use CC on Linux -- you are golden and everything works fine. Once you try to make CC into off-the-shelf product you have to do something about pthreads missing from other platforms.
Off-the-shelf products are typically born as in-house products, but they need an extra step to become what their name implies.
In the specific case of what OP described as their own extension to C, I can vividly imagine a language that doesn't cut it as an off-the-shelf one. Making an off-the-shelf language would've also guided OP to a much larger departure from C because memory safety is only one of the big problems with the language. And this is what happened to a bunch of other languages which already walked a big chunk of that departure journey. This is why I would've been frustrated having to use the language like OP's: it would've felt like not enough change and too much headache to adjust to my target environment than could be had by using actual off-the-shelf languages.
> You're showing a tremendously naive and misguided belief that libraries are somehow bad.
I have no idea where you get this from. If anything, I say the exact opposite...
I don't see the relationship... how do you make such a leap?
> Where do you think "off-the-shelf" stuff comes from?
I worked on proprietary projects that eventually went public domain. So, I can tell you where off-the-shelf comes from from personal experience. Proprietary in-house tools have the benefit of not having to deal with many things that an off-the-shelf tool would have to deal because they can choose the kind of hardware to run on, the kind of supporting libraries, their versions and combinations to use, the kind of developer tools to support and so on. off-the-shelf tools, in order to be successful must cover a much wider area of ecosystem in order to be relevant.
Here to give you a better example: C doesn't have its own concurrency primitives, no concurrency model etc. But, you could build an extension, let's call it CC to have some sort of concurrency based on pthreads library. If, for your internal needs, you only use CC on Linux -- you are golden and everything works fine. Once you try to make CC into off-the-shelf product you have to do something about pthreads missing from other platforms.
Off-the-shelf products are typically born as in-house products, but they need an extra step to become what their name implies.
In the specific case of what OP described as their own extension to C, I can vividly imagine a language that doesn't cut it as an off-the-shelf one. Making an off-the-shelf language would've also guided OP to a much larger departure from C because memory safety is only one of the big problems with the language. And this is what happened to a bunch of other languages which already walked a big chunk of that departure journey. This is why I would've been frustrated having to use the language like OP's: it would've felt like not enough change and too much headache to adjust to my target environment than could be had by using actual off-the-shelf languages.
> You're showing a tremendously naive and misguided belief that libraries are somehow bad.
I have no idea where you get this from. If anything, I say the exact opposite...