Meaningless semantic quibble. Yes, "literally" everything. Or everything worth talking about anyway. Do you have a counter example of a complete system seeing active development in the modern world without any use of C at all? I certainly can't think of one.

But having C with all its vulnerabilities in the kernel caused many - if not most - of the security relevant issues of the kernel(s). Think of buffer overflows alone.

Of course, many micros are still programmed in assembly. And assembly still plays a big part in many subsystems, though I would concede much would be written in C. Not literally everything.

I'm aware of no microcontroller work in the modern world that is done solely in machine code. Again, you have a counterexample?

I write assembly for microcontrollers constantly. If you require reliable timing at the cycle level, you have absolutely no choice in the matter.

Sure. But you don't write a system only in assembly. The point, now buried in this silly thread, was alexchamberlain's nit that it wasn't "literally" true that all systems are built on top of C kernels (whether it be an OS kernel, firmware, whatever).

You can call me what you like and if you'd said "everything" instead of "literally everything", I would have let it slide. You were being quite misleading.

Given that you haven't provided a single counterexample, I can't see how I'm being misleading. All modern systems are built on C. All of them.

And for the record, I didn't call you anything. A "nit" is a pedantic correction, c.f "nitpicking". I could have said "quibble" too. It's a reference to your words, not you.