3 ms·
> The benefit is that it makes Rust much easier to maintain and port to new architectures, and much more polyvalent, e.g. you can use Rust on true embedded "su
by tick_tock_tick 2y ago
> The benefit is that it makes Rust much easier to maintain and port to new architectures, and much more polyvalent, e.g. you can use Rust on true embedded
"supposedly" Rust's architecture support for all but the most popular archs is horrendous.
- cogman10 2y agoWell, to be frank, the unpopular archs aren't really well supported by other languages. You may be thinking "What about C?" and the answer is that for those unpopular archs you are almost certainly looking at a hand patched version of GCC (3.2... probably) created by the vendor to support C. You generally won't see good support for unpopular archs mainlined in compilers.
- zozbot234 2y ago> "supposedly" Rust's architecture support for all but the most popular archs is horrendous. Unpopular architectures are a bit of a pain. But what if you compiled from Rust to WASM and then transpiled the WASM object code to C? Is this a viable approach?
- School-Cotton 2y agoThe structure of Rust makes it possible to port it to those architectures, and if Rust continues its present momentum, someday in the future you’ll be just as likely to see some random embedded system support Rust as it is to support C now. We just haven’t had the time for it to catch on enough to get there, but there’s nothing fundamental about the language to prevent it.