@saxnot @schnedan@kif.rocks

Saxnot, friend, you are clearly mistaken on a lot of fronts about what Rust's memory safety actually means.

Additionally, I would strongly suggest you spend sometime doing even minor low-level things on C++ then Rust. I did this experiment by trying to make a basic state machine for simulating a traffic light on a raspberry pi pico (cortex-M CPU so no Linux or other advance OS) and it was bloody simple with C++ but then I had to do it with Rust... First, their embedded Eco is seriously not as advanced or far along as their seemingly "good" documentation would suggest. It took ages to get the toolchains working, then about 3x more boiler plate code and thicker programs about 1.5x more memory (I guess because of some type of padding Rust might be doing but idk). Additionally, I tried lots of things from the offical "Discovery book" that Rust website has for embedded development and even shit from the first few chapters didn't work as stated... I did manage to reach out to the core embedded team on matrix and they fixed the issues quickly but still... If even the basic stuff is so broken (timer for example) I can't imagine trying more advanced stuff. Additionally, around this time I ran into a few articles from people in Rust community talking about how it was "dangerous that we still develop embedded systems on C/C++ when we have Rust as this can cause medical machines to malfunction" -> absolute lunacy and lack of understanding of how safety critical embedded systems are developed. Like, we have advanced tools for doing formal verification of these systems and typically they don't allocate on the heap so Rust's "strengths" wouldn't even help on this case.

So, overall the Rust community doesn't actually seem to know much about really low level details yet they still want to call Rust as "low-level/systems" language. Listen, I love Rust and would like to use it for server side stuff but certainly not for a lot of domains like embedded, for that I'd always pick C++.