> might be my bias coming from a more functional background before learning Rust
This is exactly the problem. The people I'm dealing with are coming from "imperative land" and haven't had a functional background. Someone stepping up to Rust as "C with memory safety" does not have any of that functional background.
Please do remember that a "closure" is built on a lot of prior abstractions. What is a "scope"? What is "variable capture"? What is "heap" and "stack"? Why does that matter here and not normally?
No programming language is only used by experts, and Rust is no exception.
The issue is that "spawn" smacks you with a bunch of that baggage all at once.
I don't understand how a function that is defined in-place is more clear than a nice function on its own. Perhaps because it gives a sense of continuity (like in async code), but man, it's really painful to read (at least to me). In fact, if I have to write some Rust right now, all my closures would be defined elsewhere, whenever possible.
A lot of embedded code NEVER calls malloc (thus the need for no_std in Rust). Consequently, you can go a long way in embedded without really knowing the difference between stack and heap.
"Embedded programmer" does not imply "Linux Kernel Hacker".
When I started with Rust, I actually thought that the common
spawn(|| …)
syntax was something special, not just a closure with no variables.
The issue in Rust is that "spawn" is generally the first time that a programmer is forced to confront closures--before that they can completely ignore them.
It is a quirk of Rust that someone who "just wants to spawn a thread" suddenly gets all this language overhead dumped on them in a block.