We're talking about musl systems, yes? That's routers, ip cameras, ...
That C you're talking about still needs to read the config file (or files) from slow storage and then parse and apply them. Bash/Busybox ash does the exact same thing and it's also written in C.
In fact, the fastest, smallest boot process is busybox init + inittab + busybox again (ip, udhcpc, klogd, sysctl, mdev, mount, etc.). There are only 2 files to read from storage: bb and inittab.
But then again, dev don't care about efficiency. They only care about how easy it is for them to write the stuff. So, systemd ftw!!!
> Bash/Busybox ash does the exact same thing and it's also written in C
Yes, with the added benefit of an interpreter and shell implementation in between. Yippee!
> dev don't care about efficiency
systemd IS efficient. The hard truth is that it outperforms every other init system and it's not even close.
You could argue "well you don't need a fancy shmancy init system at all!!" - but even embedded applications grow and new requirements are added. Then what? Your "efficient" solution sucks, and isn't fast. Whoops!
That C you're talking about still needs to read the config file (or files) from slow storage and then parse and apply them. Bash/Busybox ash does the exact same thing and it's also written in C.
In fact, the fastest, smallest boot process is busybox init + inittab + busybox again (ip, udhcpc, klogd, sysctl, mdev, mount, etc.). There are only 2 files to read from storage: bb and inittab.
But then again, dev don't care about efficiency. They only care about how easy it is for them to write the stuff. So, systemd ftw!!!