[TheNightman]

This was my impression as well. I haven’t spent enough time with Rust to hold a hard stance on it but it definitely seems like it was not designed for “bare-metal” applications. I hadn’t heard of Zig before this but I’m definitely going to look into it now. Got any recommendations for a good intro to zig?

[insanitybit]

How is that the case? You have bare pointers and the ability to manipulate them, allocation is explicit and can be disabled, you can remove the stdlib entirely, add your own allocator support, etc etc etc.

[ziandrome22]

I'm aware of that, and the point still stands for me that I'm not sure what the point of writing in Rust is if you do all of those things.

[ziandrome22]

This gives a decent overview of some of the areas where the focus of Zig is different than Rust. Other than that...I'd just start by reading through the standard library code and the repo to get a feel. It's very very similar to C so you will be immediately comfortable, just cleans up some stuff like removing default global allocator (you pick your malloc basically), better macros (comptime), and encouraging use of non-null terminated strings and fat pointers etc.

https://ziglang.org/learn/why_zig_rust_d_cpp/

[fleventynine]

I use Rust for bare-metal development (no libc, no allocator, no panic, 32k size limit), and it is comparable to C and C++ for that use-case. The project is 99.5% Rust with a bit of assembly glue for startup/interrupt handlers.

[oddmiral]

It is not designed for, but Rust works well on microcontrollers, such as Arduino. For example, a blink program for Arduino in Rust is less than 300 bytes in size when compiled with "s" optimization level. It's a bit larger than C because of vector of interrupt handlers and error handling.

[steveklabnik]

> It is not designed for,

Making sure Rust can work in embedded environments is absolutely a design goal, and choices around this are made explicitly.