Go back to the early 1900s and have a look at the "tailless" Dunne biplane. This designer very ingeniously realized wing twist (washout) is possible, making stalling characteristics much more benign, and, taking advantage of wing sweep to use lower AOA aft wing tips to pitch the nose down. This is the fore-runner of todays slats, which can be retracted in cruising flight to save drag.
Other early biplane designs did put the upper, forward wing at a higher AOA, as a stall safety measure, but now with two equally sized wings, one cannot be set to its most efficient AOA.
So, especially if you strive towards a higher aspect, more efficient wing, where do you put your pitch control? Traditionally, aft, taking advantage of the longer torque arm of the fuselage.
Birds deal with this issue by fanning their tails open at high AOA for pitch control, then folding them at cruise to save drag.
But where else could it go? Yes, forward! Leave the empennage on and put another control surface forward. Instead of having a bi-plane, a much smaller forward wing would serve for stall warning, passively dropping the nose (it would stall first).
So if you want tailless, you need something else to control pitch. Lower aspect, washout, placing trims and control surfaces closer to CG come at a price of lower stability and/or more drag.
Computers, which can trim several times a second, have made the reduction in size of passive pitch control "fins" possible, but their function remains critical for safety. Washout and/or slats do add drag, but make the aircraft much safer in low speed/high AOA flight.
So, how about bigger, retractable slats (for swept wing aircraft), or a "safety canard" for all.