[the__alchemist]

I think this is often a function of Rust OSS libs vice the language itself. The embedded Rust community has created and promoted bad APIs. I think it's worth pointing this out and building other APIs, even though this doesn't endear you to the Rust community. I'm worried people will get the wrong idea about embedded Rust ergonomics and attribute these APIs to the language itself.

[adamnemecek]

Can you talk more about this? I'm very curious.

[bsder]

Well, for starters, allocators. The standard library is now making adjustments around that, but it's not mainstream and most people don't use them and they don't get the same level of attention as the happy path.

However, Rust, the language has its issues on embedded.

Rust's ownership model is directly at odds with lots of embedded. These bits inside a register are owned by the ADC and these bits inside a register are owned by the DAC is not a happy thing in Rust.

Lack of arbitrary sized integers and how they slice.

Cargo. Quite annoying to deal with cargo and an embedded toolchain. The Rust embedded guys have done really good work if you're on ARM. If you're not, good luck.

That having been said, if you have to go implement something like Reference Counting in something not Rust, you will weep tears of blood debugging every single time your reference counts go wrong.

Embedded is engineering. It has tradeoffs. That's life.

[steveklabnik]

I do not have as strong of feelings as your parent, but:

1. A lot of the APIs make use of the typestate pattern, which is nice, but also very verbose, and might turn many people off.

2. The generated API documentation for the lower level crates relies on you knowing the feel for how it generates the various APIs. It can take some time to get used to, especially if you're used to the better documentation of the broader ecosystem.

3. A bunch of the ecosystem crates assume the "I am running one program in ring0" kind of thing, and not "I have an RTOS" sort of case. See the discussion in https://github.com/rust-embedded/cortex-m/issues/233 for example.

[kramerger]

Every time I play with embedded Rust I get this feeling that some of the people driving it are more into language esthetics and don't have experience in real-world embedded systems.

For example, I see inefficient patterns that are common in frontend world but have no place in an embedded system being promoted as "proper" way of doing things.

[richdodd]

Could you perhaps give an example.

[the__alchemist]

The other replies reflect my thoughts, so I don't have much to add. So, these are elaborations on those:

It appears most of the peripheral support libs (eg those that use Embedded-HAL traits) are not designed with practical ends in mind; I've found it easier for all I2C/SPI etc devices I've used to start from scratch with a `setup` fn with datasheet references, than DMA transfers. So, you have these traits designed to abstract over busses etc; they sound nice in principle, but are (so far) not useful for writing firmware.

I get a general sense that the OSS libs are designed with a "let's support this popular MCU/IC, and take advantage of Rust's type system and language features!" mindset. A bare minimum is done, it's tested on a dev board, then no further testing or work. There are flaws that show up immediately when designing a device with the lib in question.

So, at least for the publicly-available things, they're designed in an abstract sense, instead of for a practical case.