[JBits]

I'm not familiar with embedded programming but I don't think this is completely a fair comparison since the Rust implementation is doing error checking, so your C code is missing either some sort of results checking or a macro. The Rust code is also probably presenting some sort of safe API. It's worth mentioning that the C code could most likely be done in Rust with unsafe.

[rectang]

I went through a good bit of the Rust Embedded book, and your assessment is right on the money.

As a long time C programmer who occasionally makes mistakes, I find the type safety of svd2rust-generated APIs incredibly gratifying. When the embedded documentation is inscrutable, the type-safe Rust API prevents you from making whole classes of nasty errors. Especially since the embedded device will probably either fail silently or misbehave in bizarre ways if you mess up.

There may be more elegant ways to design the type-safe API but even having to deal with the verbose syntax it was way easier than stumbling around in C.