3 ms·

Your criticism (e.g. OMG wrong case, OMG C uses & to mean something else) seems mostly centered around the fact that rust isn't C and less around the merits of

Your criticism (e.g. OMG wrong case, OMG C uses & to mean something else) seems mostly centered around the fact that rust isn't C and less around the merits of rust itself. But I'll bite... Some of the confusion about the names might also stem from that I expect consistent capitalization when dealing with registers, why would `pioc` be lowercase if it's in reality a register being modified? Typically in rust screaming snake case is reserved for constants. In this case, pioc is not a register (so there you go). In the context of the embedded stuff the peripherals typically get screaming snake case names at the top level struct. In this example I've configured it and assigned it to a local variable named pioc. That is very cumbersome and illogical. Reconfiguration is quite common. In the example I gave it's not possible. After an initial write to the watchdog's configuration register all subsequent writes are ignored by the MCU. That's the whole point of having compile time checks. If it compiles, it's probably OK. If it doesn't compile you're probably doing something that won't work or won't do what you expect. If you were to take the example something that can be modified you'd still have the functions laying around to modify the register. I think that's just your unfamiliarity with the platform and the example you chose. I think you'd probably want to guess again. Which peripheral is being manipulated? What happens if I get a magic number wrong and that function operates on the wrong peripheral?

Avamander 7y ago
> seems mostly centered around the fact that rust isn't C and less around the merits of rust itself. If a language is advertised as a replacement for C/C++ then one can reasonably expect there to be little that works counter-intuitively coming from the to-be-replaced language. > In this case, pioc is not a register (so there you go). "It's in reality a register being modified" is not the same as "it's a register". > After an initial write to the watchdog's configuration register all subsequent writes are ignored by the MCU. If it compiles, it's probably OK. Hardware isn't perfect. You brought up the immutability of the watchdog timer as a benefit, it really isn't, that's all I wanted to say. I also doubt that just a compiling piece of Rust can usually handle a hardware failure or an error. > Which peripheral is being manipulated? What happens if I get a magic number wrong and that function operates on the wrong peripheral? If you already have an Arduino-y abstraction then it doesn't matter in which language it's written, the same opaqueness would happen if you can't look up the pin mapping from documentation. If you really need to see which peripheral is being manipulated then it's not difficult to write two very simple lines of C to do the same thing just as clearly. You're comparing two very different things, it's just not a very good comparison.

Avamander 7y ago

> seems mostly centered around the fact that rust isn't C and less around the merits of rust itself. If a language is advertised as a replacement for C/C++ then one can reasonably expect there to be little that works counter-intuitively coming from the to-be-replaced language. > In this case, pioc is not a register (so there you go). "It's in reality a register being modified" is not the same as "it's a register". > After an initial write to the watchdog's configuration register all subsequent writes are ignored by the MCU. If it compiles, it's probably OK. Hardware isn't perfect. You brought up the immutability of the watchdog timer as a benefit, it really isn't, that's all I wanted to say. I also doubt that just a compiling piece of Rust can usually handle a hardware failure or an error. > Which peripheral is being manipulated? What happens if I get a magic number wrong and that function operates on the wrong peripheral? If you already have an Arduino-y abstraction then it doesn't matter in which language it's written, the same opaqueness would happen if you can't look up the pin mapping from documentation. If you really need to see which peripheral is being manipulated then it's not difficult to write two very simple lines of C to do the same thing just as clearly. You're comparing two very different things, it's just not a very good comparison.