3 ms·
> Rust has very few OOP features like an optional notion of a `self` on a function bound to a structure. There's no classes, no subclassing, no message passing,
by scoutt 6y ago
> Rust has very few OOP features like an optional notion of a `self` on a function bound to a structure. There's no classes, no subclassing, no message passing, no inheritance at all (structure, interface or implementation), limited dynamic dispatch, no polymorphism.
As an embedded developer for a living, if you put it that way, then the first thing it comes to my mind is "so why should I bother learning Rust" for embedded.
Other than the usual "please consider UB and network/memory handling/security issues" (reasons that don't really affect me), so far nobody could provide a convincing answer.
It's not that the usual answer I get is wrong or invalid or doesn't have a point. But if I ask "ok, what else?" there is really little motivation for me to move on.
Someone once told me I'll become an outdated curmudgeon here on HN, but I think I'll be long gone before something truly deserves to replace C for embedded (and low level).
- arcticbull 6y agoPersonally, I always encourage people to learn new and (particularly) different languages from time to time and see what concepts and design patterns they can learn and take with them into their day to day. All I can say is give it a shot sometime and see what you think. Worst case you've learned something :) > Someone once told me I'll become an outdated curmudgeon here on HN, but I think I'll be long gone before something truly deserves to replace C for embedded (and low level). You (and I) may become an outdated curmudgeon before long, but it won't be because you refused to learn Rust haha.
- int_19h 6y ago> the first thing it comes to my mind is "so why should I bother learning Rust" for embedded. Generics alone are a huge time saver compared to C, even if you use hacks like macros in the latter to do something similar already.