A language that has dependencies I wouldn't say is good for malware development.
A language does not have dependencies, a language is nothing more than a way to describe something. The implementation that you use for that language determines the dependencies for the executable. E.g., there exist numerous interpreters for C and C++, and GJC can compile Java to native code.
But if you rephrase your statement to the program or executable itself, it is still a weird statement.
There is not a single program that does not have dependencies. You have file format dependencies, OS dependencies, OS version dependencies, interpreted environment dependencies (that includes Macro malware which is pretty successful atm), language dependencies (meaning the language that is set for the OS. Some macro commands for MS Office were actually localized and only available for that one language in the past), vulnerability dependencies (for malware that uses exploits), etc etc.
Think about it.
You may have architectural and OS independent executables, which are dependent on an interpreter or a virtual machine. Most people who speak of "language dependencies" are referring to these.
You may have native code (which you probably consider without dependencies), but those executables only run on one architecture and one operating system. So they are in fact very limited and dependent on them.
Either way you have pros and cons. Calling the first example dependent and the latter independent makes no sense. It is a question of how widespread the "dependencies" are and what the actual target of the attacker is.
This is a pretty good picture by Szor that visualizes some malware dependencies:
