If he made the opposite call, and adopted CLisp, you'd be complaining about him anyway, in a thread about some unexpected compatibility problem or whatever.

It gets tiresome even to watch.

Uh, no. Common Lisp is sensible. It's multi-implementation and several of the implementations are JVM levels of fast, while others are highly portable. There's a community, standards, and libraries. It's not where the froth of lisp experimentation is happening, but it's effective and a known quantity.

You are aware though that without RMS we wouldn't have Emacs?

That's why I believe their FFI plans are doomed.

We implemented FFI's for emacs over the last decades, but RMS always strongly opposed it, because you could call windows DLL's then. gtk-emacs e.g.

RMS is fine with an FFI as long as you cannot use it to inject non-free code. This is usually done by requiring an exported symbol saying that the code is GPL compatible. GCC does it this way:

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Plugin-API.html

But you cannot call that a FFI then. A FFI is the abbrevation for "Foreign Function Interface", not "Friendly Function Interface". FFI's are not sugar coated.