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)
- 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?
RSTS/E section: why is it here?
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)