axiom VS .NET Runtime

I'm creating a hobby operating system in Nim (early stages). After an initial attempt[0] I decided to start over[1] and document my journey in building it[2]. The focus for me is on learning low-level systems programming and enjoying the journey, rather than building something production ready.

[0] https://github.com/khaledh/axiom

[1] https://github.com/khaledh/fusion

[2] https://0xc0ffee.netlify.app/osdev/01-intro.html

> kernel developers do not allow third party runtimes in the kernel. Even meager Rust's "panic" runtime is a contentious

Much in Linux is contentious :-) which is why the module system is nice. A kernel module for C code requires no permission from Linux-core unless you need it distributed with the kernel (which, yes, might be required for "credibility" - but critically also might not). It may require many decls to access various kernel APIs, but those can be (semi-)automated or just done as-needed. So, Linux kernel policy is not so relevant (at best) which is what I meant by "no special support" (admittedly brief). Kernel coding is always a bit trickier, and you may need to build up some support code to make integration nice, though as well as decl generators.

> Can one disable runtime in Nim completely -- no GC, no exceptions?

To answer your question, and as discussed elsewhere in this subthread, Nim has many options for memory management.. only stdlib seq/string really needs automatic methods. One can disable the runtime completely via os:standalone and statically check that no exceptions are raised with Nim's effect system (and there are also both setjmp & goto based exception impls which may/may not be workable in Linux/BSD kernel module settings). As "proof more by example", a few people have written OS kernels in Nim recently[1,2] and there was another toy kernel long ago[3].

People have also written OS kernels in Go which "has a GC and runtime".[4] So, I acknowledge it's not quite the same example, but I also see no fundamental blockers for kernel modules.

[1] https://github.com/khaledh/axiom

[2] https://prosepoetrycode.potterpcs.net/2023/01/a-barebones-ke...

[3] https://github.com/dom96/nimkernel

[4] https://github.com/mit-pdos/biscuit/

I gave Rust a few chances, and always came out hating its complexity. I needed a systems programming language to develop a hobby OS[1], and Nim hit the sweet spot of being very ergonomic, optional GC, and great interop with C. I can drop down to assembly any time I want, or write a piece of C code to do something exotic, but the rest of the system is pure Nim. It's also quite fast.

[1] https://github.com/khaledh/axiom

I've used both to work on a hobby OS project (Nim[1], Zig[2]). I very much prefer Nim. Code is succinct, elegant, and lets you focus on your core logic rather than fighting the language.

Zig is nice and I like its optionals support and error handling approach. But I was put off by its noisy syntax, e.g. !?[]u8 to represent an error union of an optional pointer to a many-pointer of uint8. Also having to prepare and weave allocators throughout most of the code that needs to dynamically allocate (which is most of the code) gets in the way of the main logic. Even little things like string concatenation or formatting becomes a chore. Zig also doesn't have dynamic dispatch, which makes polymorphic code hard to write; you have to work around it through some form of duck typing. In the end I realized that Zig is not for me.

[1] https://github.com/khaledh/axiom

Niceness is subjective, but Nim is just as valid an addition to that group. Nim compiles to C and has had an --os=standalone mode for like 10 years from its git history, and as mentioned else-thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36506087) can be used for Linux kernel modules. Multiple people have written "stub OSes" in it (https://github.com/dom96/nimkernel & further along https://github.com/khaledh/axiom).

While it can use clang as a backend, Nim does not rely upon LLVM support like Zig or Rust (pre-gcc-rust working). Use on embedded devices is fairly popular: https://forum.nim-lang.org/search?q=embedded (or web search).

Latency-wise, for a time, video game programming was a perceived "adoption niche" or maybe "hook" for Nim and games often have stringent frame rendering deadlines. If you are interested in video games, you might appreciate https://github.com/shish/rosettaboy which covers all but Ada in your list with Nim being fastest (on one CPU/version/compiler/etc). Note, however, that cross-PL comparisons are often done by those with much "porting energy" but limited familiarity with any but a few of the PLs. A better way to view it is that "Nim responds well to optimization effort" (like C/Ada/C++/Rust/Zig).

If anyone is interested, I have a couple of implementations of booting under UEFI and getting a bunch of info about the system (don't expect a functioning system, they just boot and dump some info):

Nim: https://github.com/khaledh/axiom

Zig: https://github.com/khaledh/axiom-zig (this one goes into depth in disassembling ACPI DSDT bytecode)

I wasn't ready to share it yet, but here it goes[1]. It's at a very early stage, but should give you an idea of how to get things up and running under Nim.

I didn't avoid malloc. I provided a simple bump pointer based heap to get things going. Later I'll have to separate things into a UEFI bootloader and a proper kernel image, each with its own allocator (the bootloader will use UEFI memory allocation services, and the kernel will have its own heap).

[1] https://github.com/khaledh/axiom

A little more on topic, if you like SIMD and C#, dotnet/runtime now has an introductory guide to Vector128/256/512 API:

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/coding-guid...

Now, the default syntax can still be a bit more wordy with byref arithmetics than ideal, but you can add a few extension methods to look it closer to Rust's pointer arithmetics: https://github.com/U8String/U8String/blob/main/Sources/U8Str...

You must be trolling and not evaluating either on their current state, or have little understanding of the subject matter as others have pointed out.

Please write an efficient text element scanner that uses all AVX512 vector width in Java that matches LLVM codegen and can take any source of memory? You can easily do that in C#, it's impossible to do it in Java alone.

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/7cd8459e7bd3883f0aa86...

This library is based on modified code from the Microsoft System.IO.Compression repository, and includes the Deflate64 algorithm from the same source.

This looks like a fun project but for serious work, if you need runtime codegen, you should use .NET which has been successfully using reflection and IL emit for more than a decade:

- Regex https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/libraries/Sy...

- Json https://github.com/neuecc/Utf8Json/tree/master?tab=readme-ov... (this project is archived but nonetheless impressive and continues to show good numbers despite obsoletion)

- LINQ to DB query compilation https://github.com/dotnet/efcore/blob/main/src/EFCore/Query/...

There is nothing wrong with System.Linq just like there's nothing wrong with Rust's std::iter::Iterator. If anything, this makes writing Rust very familiar if you have C# experience and vice versa.

The performance profile of LINQ, while much maligned, has been steadily improving over the years and, in the example of Sum itself, you actually do want to use it because it will sum faster than open-coded loop[0].

I do have grievances regarding LINQ still - my (non-negotiable) standpoint is that Roslyn (C# compiler) must lower non-escaping LINQ operations to open-coded loops, inline lambdas at IL level and similar, making it zero-cost - .NET (IL compiler/runtime) provides all the tools necessary to match what Rust's zero-cost-ish iterator expressions offer and there just needs to be more political will in the Roslyn teams to do so. Because of this, I'm holding my breath waiting for DistIL[1] to be production-ready which does just that.

[0]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/libraries/Sy...

[1]: https://github.com/dubiousconst282/DistIL

When .NET (that is, what became CoreCLR runtime flavour) became open-sourced, it was done in such a way as not to cause issues for existing Mono, Xamarin and Unity code, and allow cleanly merging the first two into overarching .NET ecosystem.

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/PATENTS.TXT

Given that MSFT never sued anyone for .NET or .NET-related matters, so far their reputation is clean in that area, unlike certain Java-related company.

Async/await is not a tight corner as showcased by a multitude of languages adopting the pattern: Rust, Python, JavaScript and Swift.

In fact, it is a clean abstraction where future progress is possible while retaining the convenience of its concurrency syntax and task composition.

Green threads experiment proved net negative in terms of benefit but its the follow-up work on modernizing the implementation detail was very successful: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620 / https://github.com/dotnet/runtimelab/blob/feature/async2-exp...

It also seems that common practices in Java indicate that properties are not a mistake as showcased by popularity of Lombok and dozens of other libraries to generate builders and property-like methods (or, worse, Java developers having to write them by hand).

.NET has explicit tailcalls - they are heavily used by and were made for F#.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.reflecti...

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/feat...

The description indicates it is not production ready, and is archived at the same time.

If you pull all stops in each respective language, C# will always end up winning at parsing text as it offers C structs, pointers, zero-cost interop, Rust-style struct generics, cross-platform SIMD API and simply has better compiler. You can win back some performance in Go by writing hot parts in Go's ASM dialect at much greater effort for a specific platform.

For example, Go has to resort to this https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f... in order to efficiently scan memory, while in C# you write the following once and it compiles to all supported ISAs with their respective SIMD instructions for a given vector width: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (there is a lot of code because C# covers much wider range of scenarios and does not accept sacrificing performance in odd lengths and edge cases, which Go does).

Another example is computing CRC32: you have to write ASM for Go https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f..., in C# you simply write standard vectorized routine once https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (its codegen is competitive with hand-intrinsified C++ code).

There is a lot more of this. Performance and low-level primitives to achieve it have been an area of focus of .NET for a long time, so it is disheartening to see one tenth of effort in Go to receive so much spotlight.