In a very real sense, the entire concept of an interpreted language in the modern sense is such an ugly kludge (much cleaner to "go all in" on the language, LISP machines being the notable predecessor) -- but do be aware of the tradeoff.
I'm taking your question as genuine, but you provided some fun value with that hehehehehe
> I can see why this is frustrating, especially to someone with no C exposure. But bear in mind that the C underpinnings are part of the reason why these languages are popular in the first place -- like Perl used to be before Python.
I the idea GP is proposing here is that because C is so cumbersome, that is why scripting languages became prominent in the first place. I don't think this many would argue with this.
> In a very real sense, the entire concept of an interpreted language in the modern sense is such an ugly kludge
Here GP is implying that if C were nicer/better, or if some other low level language would have risen to prominence, the scripting langauges would not have been "necessary" or desirable in the same way.
> (much cleaner to "go all in" on the language, LISP machines being the notable predecessor) -- but do be aware of the tradeoff.
Here I assume GP is referring to the work in the 80s on Lisp machines where the idea was to build machines from the ground up more suited to a different paradigm. And thus obviating the need for a cumbersome language such as C.
I personally wonder if GP is familiar the "worse is better" essay?
> I personally wonder if GP is familiar the "worse is better" essay?
I am, it was more or less the idea I was trying to get to. The comment I replied to was along the lines of "I'd like a uniform environment where everything is lisp/smalltalk/pharo/etc". My intention was to point out how that idea isn't as free from compromises as it might seem, which explains the dominant model of high-level scripting languages invoking components written mostly in C/C++. Which is a total eyesore, but also extremely practical.