I believe that the need of producing binaries without dependencies (I assume you mean a VM) isn't so widespread, quite the contrary, most developers want a VM u

I believe that the need of producing binaries without dependencies (I assume you mean a VM) isn't so widespread, quite the contrary, most developers want a VM underneath because then deployment becomes easier. The loud minority that has historically complained about the widespread usage of the VM have been just that, a minority. And it is funny, because things are progressing in that direction with C++ as well (speaking of LLVM or Emscripten). That is not and has never been the real difference between C++ and Java/.NET, but rather in having versus not having a GC. The main reason for why C++ still wins by a good amount in any benchmark is because for performance sensitive code memory access becomes by far the biggest bottleneck and in C++ there's simply more opportunity for optimizing memory access patterns. Delphi too lacked a GC. Java and .NET haven't killed Delphi, it is Borland that killed Delphi. This isn't a winner takes all kind of war (well, maybe it is in Windows land). We live in an industry in which multiple programming languages can coexist. For evidence of this you need to look no further than Linux, the Tower of Babel of our age. And I disagree with you - besides the open-source operating systems that are developed by multiple parties, all "OS vendors" are interested in the lock-in of developers. You're mixing cause and effect I think ... when an "OS vendor" adopts a programming language that isn't created by themselves, that's only because the programming language in question is already popular and here to stay.