>>24
You still need to make those calls for most useful ASM programs, just like you have to do it for C or Lisp or whatever. The ``runtime''/libraries/... will always exist to some extent in any real world complex system. There's no shame in that, it's what makes computers actually useful/usable. While you don't have to call a library if you don't need it, the same is true for other languages too, not just asm. For example, you could implement a SHA256 library in asm, c or lisp, and it won't have to call any external library for its work, the c and lisp version could both be compiled efficiently into a tiny library providing you're using a good compiler or implementation that allows you to do that. Which makes high-level languages just as useful as ASM here. I've used C as a portable assembler quite a few times already. Don't assume mid/high-level languages can't be used in the same way you use assembler. You could for example, make a high-level assembler in Lisp, and use that to generate code which will be executed either at runtime or in other ways(cross-compile anyone?).
tl;dr: When everything compiles to ASM, everything can do the same things ASM can do, but to actually write real, large complex programs, you'll want to use some libraries or runtimes.
PS: If you think Lisp has any runtime "requirements", you're mistaken, it can be compiled to native code, however it's common for it to have a large library, but nothing stops you from just removing/not using that library.