Related
I am planning on making a flame fractal engine (no GUI), similar to flam3,
but I need to chose a language. I have one such engine made in Java already, but it is too slow.
What I seek is a compiled language, that can be compiled to both windows and Linux (hence no .NET, GPU language), and preferably with garbage collecting and object-orientation (so no C, and C++).
What languages out there, except D, satisfy these conditions?
Any other thoughts on this?
EDIT: I am more after what similar alternatives there is to D, since D is still in development.
I will probably choose D, since it has native support for complex numbers, among other things.
However, C++ is more accessible to other developers, but it is a hard language, in my opinion.
This will undoubtedly start a new flamewar until someone closes the question. My personal opinion is you should use C++, where the missing garbage collection is something you should accept, since manual memory management offers you more performance tuning options.
Google announced a research paper yesterday about a Java / C++ / Go / Scala comparison, you may find it helpful:
https://days2011.scala-lang.org/sites/days2011/files/ws3-1-Hundt.pdf
You made yourself a very tough task (and asked an interesting question, by the way).
The only language that springs to my mind is Ada (it has an optional garbage collector, as discussed in this thread, and according to this book it support object-orientation). This Ubuntu comparison shows that Ada 2005 is quite fast, generally faster in benchmarks than Java, but slower than C/C++.
Disclaimer: I do not claim that Ada is superior to any other language. In fact, I have not used it in any reasonable application. I believe using C++ will produce faster code; moreover, probably the effort required to manage the memory manually in C++ is worth the speed improvement, but I am not an expert in this. This is not to start a flamewar (as #Doc pointed out, it may happen); just my opinion on the topic.
I decided to go for D, since it is closest to what I want.
I was merely curious what other languages that were comparable to D.
I have a large program written with my own patched version of the GNU Eiffel (SmallEiffel) compiler. While I love the language I'm running into the problem that the compiler is O(n^2) or worse on the compiled system size. So I have to move soon.
ISE Eiffel the only alive Eiffel compiler is not an option for various reasons. Mostly because the compiled code runs way to slow.
I'm looking for a language which is:
imperative and OO
has generics/templates
compiles to native code and does not
require .NET/Java
statically typed (which means fast)
garbage collected
cross platform
not as ugly and braindead as C++
I couldn't come up with anything else then D but this looks a little bit to low level and non stable. Is there really none which satisfies this seven points?
OCaml, perhaps?
You could write in Java and compile to native-ish code with GCJ (it will be native code, but you'll need to link against a fair portion of code that makes up all the things Java needs at run-time. Your users will not need to install a JRE.)
Googling 'object oriented native code compiler' brings up Objective Caml before Eiffel.
If you're willing to take your chances on a research compiler, check out the Diesel language and the native-code Vortex compiler (written for Diesel in Diesel). It is a research project, but it is stable, and Craig Chambers is one of the best people in the business.
What about Python?
It is OO, scripted language, runs fast, has generic templates.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm a scientist working mostly with C++, but I would like to find a better language. I'm looking for suggestions, I'm not even sure my "dream language" exist (yet), but here's my wishlist;
IMPORTANT FEATURES (in order of importance)
1.1: Performance: For science, performance is very important. I perfectly understand the importance of productivity, not just execution speed, but when your program has to run for hours, you just can't afford to write it in Python or Ruby. It doesn't need to be as fast as C++, but it has to be reasonably close (e.g.: Fortran, Java, C#, OCaml...).
1.2: High-level and elegant: I would like to be able to concentrate as most as possible on the science and get a clear code. I also dislike verbose languages like Java.
1.3: Primarely functional: I like functional programming, and I think it suits both my style and scientific programming very well. I don't care if the language supports imperative programming, it might be a plus, but it has to focus and encourage functional programming.
1.4: Portability: Should work well on Linux (especially Linux!), Mac and Windows. And no, I do not think F# works well on Linux with mono, and I'm not sure OCaml works well on windows ;)
1.5: Object-oriented, preferably under the "everything is an object" philosophy: I realized how much I liked object-oriented programming when I had to deal pure C not so long ago. I like languages with a strong commitment to object-oriented programming, not just timid support.
NOT REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT THINGS THAT WOULD BE NICE
2.1: "Not-too-strong" typing: I find Haskell's strong typing system to be annoying, I like to be able to do some implicit casting.
2.2: Tools: Good tools is always a plus, but I guess it really depends on the languages. I played with Haskell using Geany, a lightweight editor, and I never felt handicapped. On the other hand I wouldn't have done the same with Java or even Scala (Scala, in particular, seems to be lacking good tools, which is really a shame). Java is really the #1 language here, with NetBeans and Javadoc, programming with Java is easy and fun.
2.3: Garbage collected, but translated or compiled without a virtual machine. I have nothing against virtual machines, but the two giants in the domain have their problems. On paper the .net framework seems much better, and especially suited for functional programming, but in practice it's still very windows-centric and the support for Linux/MacOS is terrible not as good as it should be, so it's not really worth considering. Java is now a mature VM, but it annoys me on some levels: I dislike the ways it deals with executables, generics, and it writes terrible GUIs (although these things aren't so bad).
In my mind there are three viable candidates: Haskell, Standard ML, OCaml. (Scala is out on the grounds that it compiles to JVM codes and is therefore unlikely to be fast enough when programs must run for days.)
All are primarily functional. I will comment where I have knowledge.
Performant
OCaml gives the most stable performance for all situations, but performance is hard to improve. What you get is what you get :-)
Haskell has the best parallel performance and can get excellent use out of an 8-core or 16-core machine. If your future is parallel, I urge you to master your dislike of the type system and learn to use Haskell effectively, including the Data Parallel Haskell extensions.
The down side of Haskell performance is that it can be quite difficult to predict the space and time required to evaluate a lazy functional program. There are excellent profiling tools, but still significant effort may be required.
Standard ML with the MLton compiler gives excellent performance. MLton is a whole-program compiler and does a very good job.
High-level and elegant
Syntactically Haskell is the clear winner. The type system, however, is cluttered with the remains of recent experiments. The core of the type system is, however, high-level and elegant. The "type class" mechanism is particularly powerful.
Standard ML has ugly syntax but a very clean type system and semantics.
OCaml is the least elegant, both from a point of view of syntax and from the type system. The remains of past experiments are more obtrusive than in Haskell. Also, the standard libraries do not support functional programming as well as you might expect.
Primarily functional
Haskell is purely functional; Standard ML is very functional; OCaml is mostly functional (but watch out for mutable strings and for some surprising omissions in the libraries; for example, the list functions are not safe for long lists).
Portability
All three work very well on Linux. The Haskell developers use Windows and it is well supported (though it causes them agony). I know OCaml runs well on OSX because I use an app written in OCaml that has been ported to OSX. But I'm poorly informed here.
Object-oriented
Not to be found in Haskell or SML. OCaml has a bog-standard OO system grafted onto the core language, not well integrated with other languages.
You don't say why you are keen for object-orientation. ML functors and Haskell type classes provide some of the encapsulation and polymorphism (aka "generic programming") that are found in C++.
Type system than can be subverted
All three languages provide unsafe casts. In all three cases they are a good way to get core dumps.
I like to be able to do some implicit casting.
I think you will find Haskell's type-class system to your liking—you can get some effects that are similar to implicit casting, but safely. In particular, numeric and string literals are implicitly castable to any type you like.
Tools
There are pretty good profiling tools with Haskell. Standard ML has crappy tools. OCaml has basically standard Unix profiling plus an unusable debugger. (The debugger refuses to cross abstraction barriers, and it doesn't work on native code.)
My information may be out of date; the tools picture is changing all the time.
Garbage-collected and compiled to native code
Check. Nothing to choose from there.
Recommendation
Overcome your aversion to safe, secure type systems. Study Haskell's type classes (the original paper by Wadler and Blott and a tutorial by Mark Jones may be illuminating). Get deeper into Haskell, and be sure to learn about the huge collection of related software at Hackage.
Try Scala. It's an object-oriented functional language that runs in the JVM, so you can access everything that was ever written in Java. It has all your important features, and one of the nice to have features. (Obviously not #2.2 :) but that will probably get better quickly.) It does have very strong typing, but with type inference it doesn't really get in your way.
You just described Common Lisp...
If you like using lists for most things, and care about performance, use Haskell or Ocaml. Although Ocaml suffers significantly in that Floats on the heap need to be boxed due to the VM design (but arrays of floats and purely-float records aren't individually boxed, which is good).
If you're willing to use arrays more than lists, or plan on programming using mutable state, use Scala rather than Haskell. If you're looking to write threaded multi-core code, use Scala or Haskell (Ocaml requires you to fork).
Scala's list is polymorphic, so a list of ints is really a list of boxed Int objects. Of course you could write your own list of ints in Scala that would be as fast, but I assume you'd rather use the standard libraries. Scala does have as much tail recursion as is possible on JVM.
Ocaml fails on Vista 64 for me, I think because they just changed the linker in the latest version (3.11.1?), but earlier versions worked fine.
Scala tool support is buggy at the moment if you're using nightly builds, but should be good soon. There are eclipse and netbeans plugins. I'm using emacs instead. I've used both the eclipse and netbeans debugger GUI successfully in the past.
None of Scala, Ocaml, or Haskell, have truly great standard libraries, but at least you can easily use Java libs in Scala. If you use mapreduce, Scala wins on integration. Haskell and Ocaml have a reasonable amount of 3rd party libs. It annoys me that there are differently named combinators for 2-3 types of monad in Haskell.
http://metamatix.org/~ocaml/price-of-abstraction.html might convince you to stay with C++. It's possible to write Scala that's almost identical in performance to Java/C++, but not necessarily in a high level functional or OO style.
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html seems to suggest that auto x = ... (type inference for expressions) and lambdas are usable. C++0x with boost, if you can stomach it, seems pretty functional. The downside to C++ high performance template abusing libraries is, of course, compile time.
Your requirements seem to me to describe ocaml quite well, except for the "not-too-strong" typing. As for tools, I use and like tuareg mode for emacs. Ocaml should run on windows (I haven't used it myself though), and is pretty similar to F#, FWIW.
I'd consider the ecosystem around the language as well. In my opinion Ocaml's major drawback is that it doesn't have a huge community, and consequently lacks the large library of third-party modules that are part of what makes python so convenient. Having to write your own code or modify someone else's one-shot prototype module you found on the internet can eat up some of the time you save by writing in a nice functional language.
You can use F# on mono; perhaps worth a look? I know that mono isn't 100% perfect (nothing ever is), but it is very far from "terrible"; most of the gaps are in things like WCF/WPF, which I doubt you'd want to use from FP. This would seem to offer much of what you want (except obviously it runs in a VM - but you gain a huge set of available libraries in the bargain (i.e. most of .NET) - much more easily than OCaml which it is based on).
I would still go for Python but using NumPy or some other external module for the number crunching or alternatively do the logic in Python and the hotspots in C / assembler.
You are always giving up cycles for comfort, the more comfort the more cycles. Thus you requirements are mutual exclusive.
I think that Common Lisp fits your description quite well.
1.1: Performance: Modern CL implementations are almost on par with C. There are also foreign function interfaces to interact with C libraries, and many bindings are already done (e.g. the GNU Scientific Library).
1.2: High-level and elegant: Yep.
1.3: Primarily functional: Yes, but you can also "get imperative" wherever the need arises; CL is "multi-paradigm".
1.4: Portability: There are several implementations with differing support for each platform. Some links are at CLiki and ALU Wiki.
1.5: Object-oriented, preferably under the "everything is an object" philosophy: CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System, is much closer to being "object oriented" than any of the "curly" languages, and also has features you will sorely miss elsewhere, like multimethods.
2.1: "Not-too-strong" typing: CL has dynamic, strong typing, which seems to be what you want.
2.2: Tools: Emacs + SLIME (the Superior Lisp Interaction Mode for Emacs) is a very nice free IDE. There is also a plugin for Eclipse (Cusp), and the commercial CL implementations also oftem bring an own IDE.
2.3: Garbage collected, but translated or compiled without a virtual machine. The Lisp image that you will be working on is a kind of VM, but I think that's not what you mean.
A further advantage is the incremental development: you have a REPL (read-eval-print-loop) running that provides a live interface into the running image. You can compile and recompile individual functions on the fly, and inspect the current program state on the live system. You have no forced interruptions due to compiling.
Short Version: The D Programming Language
Yum Yum Yum, that is a big set of requirements.
As you probably know, object orientation, high-level semantics, performance, portability and all the rest of your requirements don't tend to fit together from a technical point of view. Let's split this into a different view:
Syntax Requirements
Object Orientated presentation
Low memory management complexity
Allows function style
Isn't Haskell (damn)
Backend Requirements
Fast for science
Garbage Collected
On this basis I would recommend The D programming language it is a successor to C trying to be all things to all people.
This article on D is about it's functional programming aspects. It is object-orientated, garbage collected and compiles to machine code so is fast!
Good Luck
Clojure and/or Scala are good canditates for JVM
I'm going to assume that you are familiar enough with the languages you mentioned to have ruled them out as possibilities. Given that, I don't think there is a language that fulfills all your expectations. However, there are still a few languages you could take a look at:
Clojure This really is a very nice language. It's syntax is based on LISP, and it runs on the JVM.
D This is like C++ done right. It has all the features you want except that it's kind of weak on the functional programming.
Clean This is based very heavily on Haskell, but removes some of Haskell's problems. Downsides are that it's not very mature and doesn't have a lot of libraries.
Factor Syntactically it's based on Forth, but has support for LISP-like functional programming as well as better support for classes.
Take a peek at Erlang. Originally, Erlang was intended for building fault-tolerant, highly parallel systems. It is a functional language, embracing immutability and first-class functions. It has an official Windows binary release, and the source can be compiled for many *NIX platforms (there is a MacPorts build, for example).
In terms of high-level features, Erlang support list comprehensions, pattern matching, guard clauses, structured data, and other things you would expect. It's relatively slow in sequential computation, but pretty amazing if you're doing parallel computation. Erlang does run on a VM, but it runs on its own VM, which is part of the distribution.
Erlang, while not strictly object-oriented, does benefit from an OO mindset. Erlang uses a thing called a process as its unit of concurrency. An Erlang process is actually a lot like a native thread, except with much less overhead. Each process has a mailbox, will be sent messages, and will process those messages. It's easy enough to treat processes as if they were objects.
I don't know if it has much in the way of scientific libraries. It might not be a good fit for your needs, but it's a cool language that few people seem to know about.
Are you sure that you really need a functional language? I did most of my programming in lisp, which is obviously a functional language, but I have found that functional programming is more of a mind-set than a language feature. I'm using VB right now, which I think is an excellent language (speed, support, IDE) and I basically use the same programming style that I did in lisp - functions call other functions that call other functions - and functions are usually 1-5 lines long.
I do know that Lisp has good performance, run on all platforms, but it is somewhat outdated in terms of how up to date support for features such as graphics, multi-threading etc. are.
i've taken a look at clojure but if you don't like java you probably won't like clojure. It's a functional-lisp-style language implemented on top of java - but you'll probably find yourself using java libraries all the time which adds the verbosoity of java. I like lisp but I didn't like clojure despite the hype.
Are you also sure about your performanc requirements? Matlab is an excellent language for a lot of scientific computation, but it is kind of slow and I hate reading it. You might find t useful though especially in conjunction with other languages, for prototypes/scenarios/subunits.
Many of your requirements are based on hearsay. One example: the idea that Mono is "terrible".
http://banshee-project.org/
That's the official media player of many Linux distributions. It's written in C#. (They don't even have a public Windows release of it!)
Your assertions about the relative performance of various languages are equally dubious. And requiring a language to not use a virtual machine is quite unrealistic and totally undesirable. Even an OS is a form of VM on which applications run, which virtualises the hardware devices of the machine.
Though you earn points for mentioning tools (although not with enough priority). As Knuth observed, the first question to ask about a language is "What's the debugger like?"
Looking over your requirements, I would recommend VB on either Mono, or a virtual machine running windows. As a previous poster said, the first thing to ask about a language is "What is the debugger like" and VB/C# have the best debugger. Just a result of all those Microsoft employees hammering on the debugger, and having the teams nearby to bug (no pun intended) into fixing it.
The best thing about VB and C# is the large set of developer tools, community, google help, code exapmles, libraries, softwaer that interfaces with it, etc. I've used a wide variety of software development environments over the past 27 years, and the only thing that comes close is the Xerox Lisp machine environmnets (better) and the Symbolics Lisp machines (worse).
When working on hobby projects I really like to program in low-level languages (in the sense that C and C++ are low level). I don't want to work with managed languages with garbage collection and whatnot that takes all the fun away (yeah, we're all different ;-) ).
Normally I use C++ for these type of projects. C++ is rather complex and not so elegant so I have been looking for a language to replace it. Anybody can give me suggestions?
Preferences (not requirements):
should be low-level (like C and C++)
compile to native code (kind of follows from the above but no harm in being explicit)
preferrably target win32/win64
object oriented
statically typed
I have looked at Objective C but I don't like it.
D? (Wikipedia page)
The D language is statically typed and
compiles directly to machine code.
It's multiparadigm, supporting many
programming styles: imperative, object
oriented, and metaprogramming. It's a
member of the C syntax family, and its
appearance is very similar to that of
C++. For a quick comparison of the
features, see this comparison of D
with C, C++, C# and Java.
I think that covers everything in your requirements except Windows support, which it has too.
Note that it has garbage collection, but your question seems to associate garbage collection with being managed - they're not the same thing. I believe garbage collection can be pretty tightly controlled in D.
I should note that I have absolutely no experience in the language whatsoever :)
Ada - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_programming_language
Oberon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(programming_language)
Modula 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula-3
Delphi? Pascal syntax, but still quote powerful and just a little more high-level than C++.
Requesting no gc is rather strong and eliminate almost every modern language - things like Ocaml, for example, fill all the other requirements.
There is also ADA which fill every of your desire, but that's a very strict language. The syntax is somewhat similar to Pascal I think, and the language has much less holes compared to C. It has built-in support for threads and 'modules' (better than C headers).
FreePascal
Delphi
Oberon
Any 3 would be great replacements. They're easier to use than C++ too.
Ada is a really good language, however, it uses garbage collections (noticed that mamboking mentioned it.) Not sure about Oberon and Modula 3.
Pascal/Delphi is also using garbage collection as far as I know. (or at least smart pointers of some kind.)
I suggest Limbo!
It's a language created by Rob Pike (co-author with Kerninghan of many programming books). This language is interpreted by the DIS virtual (memory-to-memory) machine or compiled.
It has many data types built in like tuple, pipe, list, array, channel (useful to EASILY comunicate between thread), etc. it's concurrent, modular.
It implements many modern features! and it's used to write application for the Inferno OS.
Limbo review by Dennis Ritchie and
Limbo review by Kernighan
I would suggest Vala! try it is is amazing
This is probably more of a subjective question, but which language (not API like .NET or JDK) would you use should you write your own operating system? Which language provides flexibility, simplicity, and possibly a low-level interface to the hardware? I was thinking Java or C...
C, of course.
Haskell.
Once you have flipped the right hardware bits, C is a terrible language to use for the rest of the OS. Things like the scheduler, filesystems, drivers, etc. are complex high-level algorithms, and you don't want to be writing those in assembly language (or C; same thing). It's too hard to get right. (The VM subsystem and memory manager may need to be written in something low-level, as you will need to bootstrap your high-level langauge's runtime somehow.)
Anyway, this isn't just a crazy idea that I am coming up with for SO. Here is an OS written in Haskell: http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/
Lisp is another good choice; the original Lisp machines were infinitely more tweakable (at runtime) than "modern" OSes like UNIX and Windows.
Sometimes history forgets good ideas (often in the name of "maximum performance"), and that makes me sad.
D would be an interesting choice. From its own description:
D is a systems programming language. Its focus is on combining the power and high performance of C and C++ with the programmer productivity of modern languages like Ruby and Python. Special attention is given to the needs of quality assurance, documentation, management, portability and reliability.
The D runtime assumes the existence of a garbage collector, which would not be appropriate for the very lowest levels of the kernel. However, it would be appropriate for many of the higher layers.
Build the basic components like task schedulers and drivers etc with Assembly, then build the higher level components like applications and tools with C
I believe this is how Windows XP was built too (unsure about Windows Vista and Windows 7).
Definitely... C
C, ASM, C#
Singularity
Low-level in something like Haskell or D. Productivity over performance, in my opinion. You can rewrite slow parts in C++ or even assembly later if the need arises.
High-level in Python or Ruby. Ideally I'd also have a really fast JIT-capable VM for that language, but that's not going to happen for either language for a while. Lua would be a good alternative if speed gets in the way.
The kernel has to be written in a low-level language, C is by far the best choice for this, because it is so memory efficient. The higher levels could be built with a combination of Java or more ideally Objective-C, and scripting languages like python and ruby, or lua.
Honestly, I would either use C or some hierarchy of languages that I had either designed or fit together completely seamlessly. What I would be looking for is a seamless experience that starts at the bare metal level and then I could move to higher and higher level languages as I moved up the problem space. I would probably chose something like:
C - for bare metal stuff like drivers, kernel, etc
Java/C# - for application-level things like administration consoles, OS apps
Python/PowerShell - for scripting activities like common administrative tasks (creating a new user, etc)
Personally, I think C/C#/PowerShell is more tightly integrated and the type of experience I'd be looking for. Of course, if I ever got so ambitious as to write an OS, I would have a lot of spare time on my hands and would probably really enjoy tackling the language stack first. So maybe it would be L/L#/LScript ...
BitC seems to have this in mind. Despite it's name it seems to be the midpoint of assembly language and lisp. The goal was to make a language with a strong correspondence with machine language but have an intermediate representation that supports stronger correctness inferences than is possible with most other common languages. The languages was created as part of the Coyotos project, an operating system with lofty goals of security and reliability. Formal verification is made significantly possible with the ir used in BitC.
Ada:
Ada is a structured, statically typed, imperative, and object-oriented high-level computer programming language, extended from Pascal and other languages. It was originally designed by a team led by Jean Ichbiah of CII Honeywell Bull under contract to the United States Department of Defense (DoD) from 1977 to 1983 to supersede the hundreds of programming languages then used by the DoD. Ada is strongly typed and compilers are validated for reliability in mission-critical applications, such as avionics software.
Ada, because it was not only specifically developed for such projects, but it also provides support for several very useful high level features (such as support for strong typing, concurrency and abstraction) that are simply not available in standard C.
So that, even as a project grows, you don't have to work around language limitations (think encapsulation, abstraction, namespaces in C).
Don't get me wrong, C works obviously for a great many of projects, but once a project has gained a certain size (think Linux kernel, gcc, GNOME), you will inevitably appreciate certain features of more high level languages to make the development process less tedious and also less obfuscated.
In C however, these features usually end up being -pretty poorly- emulated by excessive and almost pervert use of the pre-processor (this can for example be seen in the gcc code base), so that you get to see lots of nested macros, that from an implementation point of view, actually emulate features found in other programming languages.
In addition, Ada is the only programming language, that I am aware of, that actually provides standardized support for source code analysis using the ASIS, having such a facility in place is however the prerequisite to actually be able to maintain and transform/re-engineer a code base in the long run (think refactoring).
Having an interface like ASIS available, means that you can actually implement "semantic patching", where you can automatically rename a file, function or variable/data structure and it will actually work.
Java ?? no jave runs on a virtual machine which needs an os to run on top of ,
maybe C and some ASM ;)
I would go with D to see whether it can do it.
I would only pick the following 3 out of practicality.
C (good old fashioned)
C++ (C with stuff tacked on. Windows is partially written in this)
Java (the medium level language that just might have a capable garbage collector with controllable pauses with G1).
If I were going to start a new OS I'd do it with the subset of C++ recommended by the embedded industry. You can use things like classes and use it "as a better C" and be just as fast. Just avoid things that have massive overhead. You can even use some template features, if you stick to a certain subet that basically don't have any overhead. Look on embedded.com for features in C++ that have little to no overhead, but will allow you organize your code better than you ever could in C.
Oberon? I guess I miss Pascal too much some times. C paid the bills for quite a while, but I don't really love it.
Lisp of course!
Title text: Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
For an OS, you want speed at the lowest levels. So assembly, C, C++, Objective-C, or Java seem to be the current choices. Although it's just recently that Java got fast, and it's hard for me to imagine an OS with garbage collection.
If I were writing my own, it would be a mix of assembly and C.
A C or C++ microkernel with a JIT for a highly dynamic language like Ruby or maybe a language with native support for the Prototype pattern. Even device drivers in that language.
Not because it's practical but because it's really cool. Cool in the way that NeXTStep was cool for using Obj-C for pretty much everything.
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html - share of languages in Linux's source code.
C, by a number of reasons. Other candidates, like D, are great. However, C has this advantage: there's a lot of available open-sourced C code that you could reuse in your project (much more than is for other languages appropriate for system programming).
I would be torn between using some existing low level language and write my own based on C# but with much better generics support.
In second case I would make each method generic, but all the constraints will be resolved by compiler - to allow "duck typing" like in Scala but still language should be static. Also static virtual methods would lower the codebase.
I've had that idea for a long time, but it never seems to be doable in real timeframe, so who knows maybe in the future. :-)
Some would say Java.
Note that openfirmware is written partly in Forth, and it's very low level.
Have an open mind.
"The kernel has to be written in a low-level language, C is by far the best choice for this, because it is so memory efficient. "
Um... What about FORTH?
FORTH can be low level and high level, so you could have a whole operating system written in FORTH from the ground up, and still have a nice easy REPL scripting environment on top, also in FORTH.
However, any decent operating system should support lots of langauges on top, from C all the way to Python Ruby and Javascript. Making FORTH the basis for it all has a lot of benefits though.
edit: I'd only ever attempt this for an embedded environment with a single known hardware set. Trying to write an OS that could compete with Linux or Windows is a fools job.
If this isn't a hypothetical question, and you're looking to create your own OS, I'd probably go with C because most of the examples out there are written in C.
Also, (And I haven't build an OS yet so take this with a grain of salt), I'm thinking that the c runtime libraries would be a lot easier to port to your new OS than say .NET.
Pascal + Oberon: they have the power of C and C++ but they're not as daunting to use. Both these languages are grossly under appreciated.