Blink in rust is concise as well:

  // Main function
  #[arduino_uno::entry]
  fn main() -> ! {
    let peripherals = arduino_uno::Peripherals::take().unwrap();

    let mut pins = arduino_uno::Pins::new(
        peripherals.PORTB,
        peripherals.PORTC,
        peripherals.PORTD,
    );

    // Pin D13 is connected to L led
    let mut led = pins.d13.into_output(&mut pins.ddr);

    loop {
        led.toggle().void_unwrap();
        arduino_uno::delay_ms(500);
    }
  }

https://github.com/vlisivka/rust-arduino-blink/blob/main/src...

When I converted code from C to Rust, I was left with much more code.

Are you just noting specifics, or was it your experience that there was less Rust required for a full C to Rust conversion?

AFAIK it is a common experience that both C and C++ code tend to become fewer LOC in a move to Rust, a lot of it due to stuff like serde that greatly reduces boilerplate. It probably depends on your application and program size, though. I'm sure that if you're doing a lot of pointer wrangling or something it won't be smaller in Rust, while if your C program was just a bunch of SIMD intrinsics anyway like a lot of high performance code is now it'll probably be basically the same length.

Did you ever take a look to try and figure out where the extra verboseness came from? For instance, was it spread equally across all functions or concentrated in those doing numeric computations (or whatever)? It would be interesting to learn something from this example.

Did you convert it by hand and translate the code into idiomatic rust? Or just run some C code through c2rust? Because the latter will not produce anything like a typical rust program, it will be C types and logic with minimal changes to make it compile in rust (and those changes will make it look very verbose).

for one thing, naming a C struct requires more words than naming a Rust struct; for another, the names of functions that operate on them

I mostly agree with your post but:

> If you need a data structure more complex than an array of something, C is stupidly verbose.

What’s stupidly verbose about Structs to you?

"Data structure" here probably means something like a linked list, binary tree, or hash table.

Linked list, binary tree, and heck, even a hash table aren’t “stupidly verbose” to me in C either, hence my question to GP.

You have to allocate and deallocate--where and when does that occur? When the data structure needs to grow, all pointers need to be invalidated--where and when does that occur? How do you iterate across the data structure? Do those iterators hold a local pointer or do they hold a root pointer plus an accessor function pointer plus memoization? What happens when you want to copy a subset of the data structure? I can go on and on.

Every one of those things requires a fairly primitive function call that sometimes doesn't even need to exist in another language. For contrast, think about all the macrology that the Linux kernel does to iterate across every element of a linked list that is effectively "for element in list {}" in any higher language.

And, even worse, most of that stuff in C needs to be runtime-only, while some of this kind of thing gets elided by the compiler in other languages.

If you don't consider all that "stupidly verbose" I'm really curious what you would?

And this is long before we start talking about concurrency.

C allows you to write something that works "just enough" that you put it into production and then it bites you in the ass (similar to quadratic algorithms--functional enough to get to production and then bite you).