@barrkel You make some good points and there is one which I thought about but didn't touch on because I didn't think it was important. Consider: most systems

@barrkel You make some good points and there is one which I thought about but didn't touch on because I didn't think it was important. Consider: most systems and kernel developers do not write C. That is, they do not simply target "the C programming language." Instead, they often target GCC or the Intel C compiler. Even more, they usually target an architecture. In theory one may have to deal with many of the complexities of different implementations, but in practice development is usually restricted (or sometimes duplicated). I think that you may be taking my position a bit too concretely: I don't support the statement that all opcode output is predictable, nor do I support the statement that no other language has elements of the same techniques which make C so useful for systems development. Simply, view my post as a (possibly slightly exaggerated) relation of the systems C development process from one low-level kernel developer to another. From the birds' eye view (which is the feeling I get from the original post) C may look abstracted and neat, but my experience says that the opposite is in fact true and that things tend to get a lot more dirty in the details.