Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "rust runs on EVERYTHING (no operating system, just Rust)" video.

The funny thing is that you can't use most of the standard library at that level without writing it yourself. With a language at the complexity of Rust, you have to write a lot to achieve the same functionality as you would have on a desktop computer. So for embedded platforms you won't have the majority of what presumably makes Rust even a good language. The only real question to ask ourselves is, what makes Rust with that basic level of functionality worth it then? It has an awful syntax, and adds some complexity to the build process over and above what C or assembly would. Unsafe code, which is required to manipulate memory references in this way eliminates a lot of memory safety. So if it does array bounds checking, which no one outside of first years should have a problem with, then that's it's only advantage.
4
@cherubin7th What you meant to write is that with a stupid programmer you get all kinds of bugs that require someone else to save your butt. Good programmers only have bugs due to typos, which even C compilers will catch. Great programmers won't have those. Everyone else can use Rust.
2
@0LoneTech I've looked into Jai, and I'm not liking a lot of what I'm seeing there. I'd prefer to stick with either C or assembly at lower levels, but I still haven't found the perfect language at higher levels. Thus far C is the best I've found even with its limitations. Most of the syntactic sugar on other languages just gets in the way and the things which don't just aren't enough for me to switch. As for the compiler catching errors, gcc and clang are amazingly good at catching errors with more levels of fine grained control that you can annoy yourself to the extreme with them or turn them all off.
2
@0LoneTech If by reorienting you mean that it can consider a struct as an array of elements of various types, or that it could use an array where a typed struct is requested, then I'm not impressed. I've already got that in the language I'm writing. If there's some other meaning, then please elucidate.
2
@0LoneTech I'm not sure I get the point of that feature then. Instead of x[i].a you could reference it as x.a[i] or vice versa? Would it make it easier to reference one index into the array as a tuple? Say you have the second form, could you reference a and b at x[i] singularly? As for my own language, I haven't released it yet either, but I'm calling it Ocean.
2
@0LoneTech I guess I deal too much with lower levels of coding, because I don't have a problem with doing such tuning manually. I'll have to consider a strategy that'll work for others.
2
@genericdeveloper3966 I am, because anyone that works with me can easily read and understand my code and don't have to worry about bugs.
1