Talk:Run-time system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Misleading statement[edit]

The second statement reads: „Every computer language implements some form of runtime system...“. Indeed a runtime system itself is implemented in some computer language and probably every computer language can be used to build some runtime system :-) but should it rather say that „Every computer language is implemented by (or executed by - but this is not so accurate') some form of runtime system...“ instead? --Anhtrobote (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Run-time environment[edit]

Run-time environment redirects to this article. What does it mean? Is it synonymous to run-time system? Or is it what surrounds a run-time system? --Abdull (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To me, "run-time environment" and "run-time system" are nearly synonymous. If there is a difference, it would be that a "run-time system" is the minimal set of libraries etc for running the relevant kind of programs, whereas "run-time environment" would also include optional libraries. For instance, you could say that the run-time system for Java is the Java Virtual Machine plus some core classes (eg., java.*), whereas the Java Run-time Environment (JRE) that most users install includes many, many additional classes. In practice, only people developing the run-time care about this distinction; end-users and developers writing programs for that system always want the whole environment, not just a minimal system. Hope this helps, CWC 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Run-time system and Runtime library?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Abdull has suggested merging these two articles. I think that would be a good idea, but then I'm a mergist. The distinctive thing about a run-time library is that it is closely tied to the compiler, and generally written by the same people. A run-time system provides everything needed to run programs, which almost always includes a run-time library. For some languages (notably C and C++), the run-time library is the run-time system — that is, all you need to run programs in these languages is the appropriate run-time library. OTOH, languages implemented using a 'byte code' format (eg., Java, .NET languages) need interpreters and/or JIT-style compilers as well as a run-time library. I'm sure we could cover all of this in a single shortish article. I'm willing to help, but will be too busy until late November. Cheers, CWC 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


RSTS/E section: why is it here?[edit]

The RSTS/E section seems oriented more towards people interested in learning about RSTS/E than about the general concept of a run-time system. The introduction does say that it is "an early example" of a run-time system, but there's no explanation of why it's a typical or significant example. On the whole, the section seems out of place. John lindgren (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "run-time system" has a special, different meaning in RSTS/E. A RSTS/E RTS either provided a complete environment for non-privileged PDP-11 machine code or ran an interpreter in such an enviroment. This is a lot more complicated than other run-time systems. RSTS/E run-time systems were part of the operating system, not userland libraries/interpreters. So the RSTS/E case is not typical. Given that only antique-computing hobbyists use RSTS/E these days, it's not significant either.
IMO, there's probably some content worth merging into the RSTS/E article. Then we should replace the RSTS/E section of this article with something like "The term “run-time system” had a somewhat different meaning with the RSTS/E operating system; see RSTS/E#Run-time system."
What do other editors think? CWC 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)