FreeRTOS meets Rust

Re:FreeRTOS meets Rust by ambrop7 on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @02:39AM (#12595840)

The problem with FreeRTOS is that it comes without batteries included, like drivers, networking and filesystem. I see such features as a primary advantage of an RTOS compared to a home-grown solution without threads (i.e. just main and interrupts).

For those who like a full OS, RTEMS is a more complete solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FreeRTOS meets Rust by kirrent on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @03:17AM (#12595969)

To be fair, that's by design and they make no secret of the fact that it's not a fully featured OS. FreeRTOS has a lot of that stuff available but I think that part of the reason it's so popular is because of how bare-bones, lightweight, and portable it is. From their FAQ: What is a Real Time Kernel? See the page "what is an RTOS" for a more detailed explanation than provided here.

A Real Time Operating System can provide many resources to application writers - including TCP/IP stacks, files systems, etc. The Kernel is the part of the operating system that is responsible for task management, and intertask communication and synchronisation. FreeRTOS is a real time kernel.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FreeRTOS meets Rust by rkangel on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @07:10AM (#12596778)

For me though, that's an advantage. I just want the basic primitives that deal with the pre-emptive multitasking and then we'll build everything over the top.

[ Parent | on HN ]