There's a fair amount to unpack here.

> 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?