XPost: alt.folklore.computers   
   From: commodorejohn@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 12:33:53 -0700   
   Peter Flass  wrote:   
      
   > Actually, many systems programming languages have no I/O, the idea   
   > being that non-OS programs call the OS to do the I/O, and the OS   
   > interacts directly with the hardware.   
      
   "Systems programming" usually implies implementation of an OS, though,   
   and IIRC that was the sense that Kernighan was using. You can't excuse   
   limitations by "oh, the OS handles that" when your program *is* the OS.*   
      
   * (Obviously, there's a certain point in any HLL where Deep Magic has   
     to handle interfacing between language constructs and bare metal, but   
     the higher up the "threshold of minimum abstraction" is, the less   
     suitable it is for systems programming in the first place.   
      
     Of course, there's also the problem where seemingly *any* language   
     that's not designed for systems programming will ultimately get   
     pressed into service for systems programming  *somewhere...*)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)