In all seriousness, why is that a problem? Surely for embedded, the size and hardware usage of the resultant binary is what matters, not the size/number of tools used to build it? I get that a lot of people worry about supply chain attacks right now (and that's fine, everyone should be thinking about how to mitigate that problem/reduce it) - but going back to a world where code re-use is significantly less usable isn't likely to magically make everything better, that has trade-offs too - particularly if (as plenty of people clearly do) they want a modern dev experience for embedded hardware.

It's already in use at least it automotive. If you are not working with safety critical systems (ADAS type) Rust and to some extent embassy is already in the wild. Companies like ETAS (https://www.etas.com/ww/en/) or Ferrous (https://ferrous-systems.com) are working to certify Rust and some crates (embassy is there) to be used with safety critical components. It's not question if but when it will be used. Volvo, Renault and some Chinese brands already ship cars with Rust embedded components in non safety critical path.

A lot of those dependencies are from the same project, though. It's just split into multiple crate so you don't need to pull in one mega-lump of code for everything.

(Also, I am currently using it for an industrial application)