> I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. [...] , but you can do it all in C

If you trace the actual context of the conversation from ggp (doubtfuluser - "SDL is not 1000 lines anymore") to gp (shric - "pure C") ... it is clear that "pure C" was just an imprecise and shorthand alternative to saying the more verbose "pure ISO C Standard C with no extra external libraries such as SDL". (I.e. https://www.iso-9899.info/wiki/The_Standard ... has <stdio.h> and console printf() builtin there are no but no graphics and audio primitives)

But people just quickly type things out that seem obvious in a particular discussion e.g. "pure C" ... but can't foresee 4d chess moves ahead in how others will misinterpret phrases like that, and then the pedantic correction guns come out blazing.

<pedantic>But SDL _is_ "pure C".</pedantic> Yes, yes... I know. But one can just read gp's use of "pure C" with charity to see what he was trying to communicate.