And that's great! But I want to know how things actually work, and those tools
put a lot of code between me and the machine.
In this post, I'll show how to create a simple web graphics demo using none of
no libraries between our code and the platform. It's the web equivalent of bare
The resulting WebAssembly module will be less than 300 bytes. That's about
the same size as the previous paragraph.
The typestate pattern is an API design pattern that encodes information about
an object's run-time state in its compile-time type. In particular, an API
using the typestate pattern will have:
Operations on an object (such as methods or functions) that are only available
when the object is in certain states,
A way of encoding these states at the type level, such that attempts to use
the operations in the wrong state fail to compile,
State transition operations (methods or functions) that change the
type-level state of objects in addition to, or instead of, changing run-time
dynamic state, such that the operations in the previous state are no longer
This is useful because:
It moves certain types of errors from run-time to compile-time, giving
programmers faster feedback.
It interacts nicely with IDEs, which can avoid suggesting operations that are
illegal in a certain state.
It can eliminate run-time checks, making code faster/smaller.
This pattern is so easy in Rust that it's almost obvious, to the point that
you may have already written code that uses it, perhaps without realizing it.
Interestingly, it's very difficult to implement in most other programming
languages — most of them fail to satisfy items number 2 and/or 3 above.
I haven't seen a detailed examination of the nuances of this pattern, so here's
Over the past few months, I've been rewriting it — in Rust.
This is an interesting test case for Rust, because we're very much in C/C++'s
home court here: the demo runs on the bare metal, without an operating system,
and is very sensitive to both CPU timing and memory usage.
The results so far? The Rust implementation is simpler, shorter (in lines of
code), faster, and smaller (in bytes of Flash) than my heavily-optimized C++
version — and because it's almost entirely safe code, several types of
bugs that I fought regularly, such as race conditions and dangling pointers, are
now caught by the compiler.
It's fantastic. Read on for my notes on the process.
This is a position paper that I originally circulated inside the firmware
community at X. I've gotten requests for a public link, so I've cleaned it up
and posted it here. This is, obviously, my personal opinion. Please read the
whole thing before sending me angry emails.
tl;dr: C/C++ have enough design flaws, and the alternative tools are in good
enough shape, that I do not recommend using C/C++ for new development except in
extenuating circumstances. In situations where you actually need the power of
C/C++, use Rust instead. In other situations, you shouldn't have been using
C/C++ anyway — use nearly anything else.