The overall argument that Rust's use in embedded has a long way to go is fairly accurate. A foundational crate like embedded-hal reached 1.0 only 2 months ago, 8 years after Rust 1.0. On the other hand, this crate reaching 1.0 means the rest of the ecosystem can now mature alongside it.
The paper could use a few minor corrections and improvements. For example, they go through thousands of crates in crates.io to give the impression of completeness, but it would have been better to go though a more curated source like https://github.com/rust-embedded/awesome-embedded-rust. It doesn't matter if the quality of random one off crates that someone hacked over a weekend is poor, it does matter if the crates recommended by the community are poor. But I suppose their analysis would look impressive then.
The other nit is that they think that the existence of even one instance of unsafe is a problem. This is a mistake that people unfamiliar with Rust make.
The paper could use a few minor corrections and improvements. For example, they go through thousands of crates in crates.io to give the impression of completeness, but it would have been better to go though a more curated source like https://github.com/rust-embedded/awesome-embedded-rust. It doesn't matter if the quality of random one off crates that someone hacked over a weekend is poor, it does matter if the crates recommended by the community are poor. But I suppose their analysis would look impressive then.
The other nit is that they think that the existence of even one instance of unsafe is a problem. This is a mistake that people unfamiliar with Rust make.