4 ms·
Yeah, but Rust is much more complex than Forth, and really hates baremetal: you can do baremetal in Rust, but it's idiomatic to minimize contact. That works rea
by qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Yeah, but Rust is much more complex than Forth, and really hates baremetal: you can do baremetal in Rust, but it's idiomatic to minimize contact. That works really well in some cases: OS work, for example.
But if you're working in a raw microconroller, you're going to be touching metal constantly, and you won't want anything you don't use slowing you down.
In short, Rust is great, but it doesn't beat Forth in Forth's biggest problem space: programming embedded systems under exceptionally tight size/speed constraints.
- armitron 10y agoNot to mention that Rust is not interactive and doesn't allow for dynamic, incremental development. Forth brings the rapid, extremely tight feedback loop one sees in Lisp or Smalltalk to hardware. Comparing it to Rust is missing this point entirely. Finally, let's not forget that Forth has been empirically validated multiple times in this domain (e.g. NASA has used Forth on board satellites and spacecraft). Rust is entirely unproven in the hardware/microcontroller space (some would say in general), so I tend to view posts like ekidd's ("for more complicated embedded work") as projecting/wishful thinking.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoGood point: I was going to bring this up, but I already had in another post, and I didn't think anybody who wanted rust on their hardware wouldn't care, as they quite clearly liked compiled languages. But this is a huge draw for Forth, speaking as a Lisp user.