Indeed.

In some ways, this kind of thing is ideal for Rust. It’s at it best when you’ve a good idea of what your data looks like, and you know where it’s coming from and going to, and what you really want is a clean implementation that you know has no mistakes. Reimplementing ‘core code’ that hasn’t changed much in twenty years to get rid of any foolish overflows or use-after-free bugs is perfect for it.

Using Rust for exploratory coding, or when the requirements keep changing? I think you’ve picked the wrong tool for the job. Invalidate a major assumption and have to rewrite the whole damn thing. And like you say; an important choice for big projects as choosing a tool that a lot of people will be able to use. And Window is very big.

They’re smoking crack, anyway. A million lines per dev per month? When I’m doing major refactoring, a couple thousand lines per week in the same language, mostly moving existing stuff into a new home, is a substantial change. Three orders of magnitude more with a major language conversion? Get out of here.

I mean, Rust has the massive upsite that it won’t compile in many cases if you fuck things up. Then again, embedded or generally low-level driver-y stuff is still in its infancy in Rust. Relative to C/C++ that is.

There is stuff that you need that has no official Rust support. There is poor documentation and half baked frameworks. There are examples being silently outdated, breaking changes between framework versions, and nighlty-versions from Github mixed in to fix them. And then of course plenty of timing and hardware dependent things you will need to do yourself.

I do this for a living and personally tried to use AI here and there to help me out, but oftentimes it fails miserably. Not always, but very often.