They have a clean, effective website. It has a pleasing look, and mostly it's just what a webpage should be, after all: a document. Text, images, an interactive code editor. Some CSS to make it look pleasing and readable. A navbar at the top. It works, it is pleasing to the eye, it communicates what it what it is meant to communicate and links to 4 important sections of the website.

Wait, let's throw all that away and develop a vomit-inducing monstrosity, complete with: in-your-face extra-bold title headers, jarring colours and colour changes, overall very large design suitable for tablets and not desktops (which is after all where most of your target audience should be accessing from)... What a complete cock-up. The web design equivalent of painting flames on your car: an immature attempt to look "cool" that turns the thing into an horrendous mess.

I can only sincerely ask why why why.

> What a complete cock-up.

Ferociously bad doesn't even begin to cover it.

This is a result of Rust attempting to be "social ecosystem" instead of a "useful programming language". Sigh.

If you really wanted to improve the current website, make the "Featuring" bullets actually change the code in the runbox. Now THAT would be impressive so that people can actually see what all the fuss actually looks like.

As for the new site, I'll leave the cosmetics to people far more qualified to judge.

However, as someone who works in embedded and has been tracking Rust, the idea of putting "Embedded" on the front page and trying to advertise Rust as a useful embedded language isn't just laughable--it's dangerous. Rust is so far from useful in embedded that people who try to use it will NEVER come back and they will report to their managers that it shouldn't even be looked at for another 5-10 years.

Until I can sit down with a sparkly new Windows 10 VM, plug my board in via USB, fire of a Windows installer, double-click on a selection dialog for my current evaluation board, watch it crunch and then pop up a Debug windows with an LED blinking, we're not even at the starting line. (Most environments for embedded now are pretty good about this--getting your blinking LED really is the "Hello, World!" equivalent).

I don't mind who downboted this but it would help me to learn why?

It seems to me that this comment is making a valid point, if only in a strong tone.

"the idea of putting "Embedded" on the front page and trying to advertise Rust as a useful embedded language isn't just laughable--it's dangerous. Rust is so far from useful in embedded that people who try to use it will NEVER come back"

Embedded is still at its early development stages, just like WASM and just like asynchronous network programming. Still, all those are on the front page.

WASM a year ago and wasm todays is a tremendous difference. A year ago, in my opinion, WASM was something for experimentation. Now, a lot of the ecosystem "just works" and is developing really quickly. You can write a working JS library and upload it to NPM without even touching a line of JavaScript code.

Async (network) programming in Rust with async/await is promising but still in flux, so the ecosystem hasn't settled yet. Still, a lot of systems already use it in production.

Embedded in Rust a year ago was mostly a list of blogposts, an early draft of HAL traits and some random register binding crates. You had to use nightly, and your code would frequently break. But in just a few weeks, you'll be able to use Embedded on stable, there is an active ecosystem developing around svd2rust, groups like stm-rs and lpc-rs are forming and a lot of device agnostic drivers have already been written. Combine that with a very promising preview of a new version of the RTFM framework. It's not production ready yet, but I'd estimate it will be within 2 years. See https://github.com/rust-embedded/awesome-embedded-rust for a summary of the ecosystem.

The problem with the post above is not that it's written in a strong tone. It's that it's uninformed, generalizing and unfair.