Thanks for replying! And my view is that having a smaller stdlib and pushing all the responsibility to crates means that the language isn't actually usefully s

Thanks for replying! And my view is that having a smaller stdlib and pushing all the responsibility to crates means that the language isn't actually usefully stable, since it means downstream still can't depend on not having breaking changes of its dependencies. The URL library can make breaking changes and have a major version bump; but that means everybody ever that used a URL will need to deal with it, which can be annoying if you happen to be using a crate that does so half a dozen layers in. Saying that a library is broken because its dependencies changed shifts the blame but that doesn't actually help the end developer. I totally understand though; that's more of an artifact of having a young language. I just still find it frustrating. As for unstable compiler plugins: sure, it's looking at dirty compiler internals and whatnot. But that means people are using non-release compilers, and makes it more likely to start using the same in their code. The same could have been achieved by having a compiler version (completely separate from the language version, sort of like how GCC version numbers are decoupled from the C language); instead, we've got instructions lying around encouraging people to use unreleased toolchains. I guess I really just want a stable, battery-included thing to build on top of, but while Rust is exciting it isn't quite there yet. Really thankful for the Rust team (and friends) for working on all this and letting us have a look, though, and looking forward to the day the ecosystem gets there :)