Regarding the runtime sizes - the size of a runtime shouldn't really have much bearing on the quality of a language anyway. I should've prefaced that better.

Also, to pedantically correct myself, technically a C# program doesn't need the .NET runtime, Java programs don't need the JRE and C++ programs don't need the MSVC runtimes
Keep in mind this is a borderline language bashing thread, so a healthy mix of farce and jest should be expected.

This section is a bit misleading too

I'd prefer "opinionated"
Yes you can write an OS in C# or a massive GUI in C++, but IMHO it's not the most productive approach.

It's considered too bloated and error-prone for use in the Linux kernel, and embedded platforms tend to lack a decent C++ compiler.

C++ isn't used in the Linux kernel simply because of Linus Torvalds stereotyping of C++ programmers (much in the same way the C++ programmers stereotype Java programmers, and Java programmers stereotype... end users?). Windows has successfully used C++ at low levels, and we should all know that C++ is no more bloated than C thanks to it's pay for what you use philosophy.
I'm not sure if embedded platforms still tend to lack good C++ compilers -- yeah, you've had to write "C with classes" type code in the past (which can often be be a better style for such simple systems anyway... ;P) but the majority of systems I've used have supported a fairly modern GCC or similar quality compiler.

Regarding the runtime sizes - the size of a runtime shouldn't really have much bearing on the quality of a language anyway. I should've prefaced that better.

Also, to pedantically correct myself, technically a C# program doesn't need the .NET runtime, Java programs don't need the JRE and C++ programs don't need the MSVC runtimes
Keep in mind this is a borderline language bashing thread, so a healthy mix of farce and jest should be expected.

This section is a bit misleading too

I'd prefer "opinionated"
Yes you can write an OS in C# or a massive GUI in C++, but IMHO it's not the most productive approach.

It's considered too bloated and error-prone for use in the Linux kernel, and embedded platforms tend to lack a decent C++ compiler.

C++ isn't used in the Linux kernel simply because of Linus Torvalds stereotyping of C++ programmers (much in the same way the C++ programmers stereotype Java programmers, and Java programmers stereotype... end users?). Windows has successfully used C++ at low levels, and we should all know that it's no more bloated than C thanks to it's pay for what you use philosophy.
I'm not sure if embedded platforms still tend to lack good C++ compilers -- yeah, you've had to write "C with classes" type code in the past (which can often be be a better style for such simple systems anyway... ;P) but the majority of systems I've used have supported a fairly modern GCC or similar quality compiler.

Regarding the runtime sizes - the size of a runtime shouldn't really have much bearing on the quality of a language anyway. I should've prefaced that better.

Also, to pedantically correct myself, technically a C# program doesn't need the .NET runtime, Java programs don't need the JRE and C++ programs don't need the MSVC runtimes
Keep in mind this is a borderline language bashing thread, so a healthy mix of farce and jest should be expected.

This section is a bit misleading too

I'd prefer "opinionated"
Yes you can write an OS in C# or a massive GUI in C++, but IMHO it's not the most productive approach.

It's considered too bloated and error-prone for use in the Linux kernel, and embedded platforms tend to lack a decent C++ compiler.

C++ isn't used in the Linux kernel simply because of Linus Torvalds stereotyping of C++ programmers (much in the same way the C++ programmers stereotype Java programmers). Windows has successfully used C++ at low levels, and we should all know that it's no more bloated that C thanks to it's pay for what you use philosophy.
I'm not sure if embedded platforms still tend to lack good C++ compilers -- yeah, you've had to write "C with classes" type code in the past (which can often be be a better style for such simple systems anyway... ;P) but the majority of systems I've used have supported a fairly modern GCC or similar quality compiler.

Regarding the runtime sizes - the size of a runtime shouldn't really have much bearing on the quality of a language anyway. I should've prefaced that better.

This section is a bit misleading too

I'd prefer "opinionated"
Yes you can write an OS in C# or a massive GUI in C++, but IMHO it's not the most productive approach.

It's considered too bloated and error-prone for use in the Linux kernel, and embedded platforms tend to lack a decent C++ compiler.

C++ isn't used in the Linux kernel simply because of Linus Torvalds stereotyping of C++ programmers (much in the same way the C++ programmers stereotype Java programmers). Windows has successfully used C++ at low levels, and we should all know that it's no more bloated that C thanks to it's pay for what you use philosophy.
I'm not sure if embedded platforms still tend to lack good C++ compilers -- yeah, you've had to write "C with classes" type code in the past (which can often be be a better style for such simple systems anyway... ;P) but the majority of systems I've used have supported a fairly modern GCC or similar quality compiler.

Regarding the runtime sizes - the size of a runtime shouldn't really have much bearing on the quality of a language anyway. I should've prefaced that better.

This section is a bit misleading too

I'd prefer "opinionated"

It's considered too bloated and error-prone for use in the Linux kernel, and embedded platforms tend to lack a decent C++ compiler.

C++ isn't used in the Linux kernel simply because of Linus Torvalds stereotyping of C++ programmers (much in the same way the C++ programmers stereotype Java programmers). Windows has successfully used C++ at low levels, and we should all know that it's no more bloated that C thanks to it's pay for what you use philosophy.
I'm not sure if embedded platforms still tend to lack good C++ compilers -- yeah, you've had to write "C with classes" type code in the past (which can often be be a better style for such simple systems anyway... ;P) but the majority of systems I've used have supported a fairly modern GCC or similar quality compiler.

Regarding the runtime sizes - the size of a runtime shouldn't really have much bearing on the quality of a language anyway. I should've prefaced that better.

This section is a bit misleading too

I'd prefer "opinionated"

It's considered too bloated and error-prone for use in the Linux kernel, and embedded platforms tend to lack a decent C++ compiler.

C++ isn't used in the Linux kernel simply because of Linus Torvalds stereotyping of C++ programmers (much in the same way the C++ programmers stereotype Java programmers).
I'm not sure if embedded platforms still tend to lack good C++ compilers -- yeah, you've had to write "C with classes" type code in the past (which can often be be a better style for such simple systems anyway... ;P) but the majority of systems I've used have supported a fairly modern GCC or similar quality compiler.