> So a GC with bounded pause could be used in a realtime system assuming you could guarantee the explicit bounds. You can't guarantee explicit bounds on when a

> So a GC with bounded pause could be used in a realtime system assuming you could guarantee the explicit bounds. You can't guarantee explicit bounds on when a given resource will be collected with GC. Bounded times can provide upper bounds on GC pass runtime, but they do that by potentially deferring further collection. Those deferrals make it nondeterministic. > And most kernels don't need to be realtime unless they are realtime kernels. That's not true. Most (all?) kernels have internal realtime needs, e.g. responding to interrupts. There is a way to write a kernel with a GC'd language, as Niklaus Wirth has demonstrated, by circumventing the GC where needed. But the critique I was bringing up was simply that there's no such thing as a realtime GC.