Windows has a lot of C++ in it, I think. Anyway, C++ has all the bad bits of C, so it's not really that much of a deal. An OS written in Rust, though, that could be an actual, real step up from our current 1970s software tech.
I agree, but we are very far away from a OS vendor adopting anything else.
There are some embedded solutions running Ada or Java directly on hardware, effectively using the runtime as an OS, but that is very specialized market.
Looking for the timeframe it took OS to adopt C++, we are looking at similar timeframe for any C++ alternative.
What's your definition for "runtimes" because in my experience your statement isn't true. I have done embedded system programming and would have noticed if the languages I used added some runtime.
The CS definition of runtime. The set of primitives required to support the semantics of the programming language.
In C this would be the code required to call main (), initialization of global variables, hooks for library functions like atexit () to register their actions and a few other things.
Sure one can disable this runtime, however whatever happens to be used instead is nothing else than a customized runtime.
I am streching a bit the meaning here, but in some processors even the microcode logic could be seen as a kind of silicone runtime.
Ok, but that not the definition used for a lot of languages (particularly when talking about microcode). Ada will happily compile to bare metal without what is traditionally considered a runtime. Forth on forth chips is as bare as you can get.
