Usually when people care about worst-case execution time, they are running their code on a computer without caches and either no OS or an OS with a very simple, predictable scheduler. And they never access the filesystem (if there is one) or wait on the network (if there is one) in their WCET-constrained code.

Those are the environments that John upthread was talking about when he said:

> There's tons of embedded use cases where a GC is not going to fly just from a code size perspective, let alone latency. That's mostly where I've often seen C (not C++) for new programs.

But I've seen C++ there too.

If you're worried about the code size of a GC you probably don't have a filesystem.

Yeah totally, if you're in those kinds of environments, then I agree that a GC is a bad choice of tech.

I say that even though, as you noticed in another reply, I worked on research to try to make GC suitable for exactly those environments. I had some cool demos, and a lot of ideas in FUGC come from that. But I would not recommend you use GC in those environments!

There is a way to engineer Fil-C to not rely on GC. InvisiCaps would work with isoheaps (what those embedded dudes would just call "object pools"). So, if we wanted to make a Fil-C-for-flight-software then that's what it would look like, and honestly it might even be super cool

Well, there is a whole JVM implementation for hard real-time with a GC, that's used in avionics/military -- hard real time is a completely different story, slowness is not an issue here, you exchange fast execution for a promise of keeping a response time.

But I don't really think it's meaningful to bring that up as it is a niche of a niche. Soft-real time (which most people may end up touching, e.g. video games) are much more forgiving, see all the games running on Unity with a GC. An occasional frame drop won't cause an explosion here, and managed languages are more than fine.