These controversies were mainly bikeshedding names and syntax (vs `...`, `any Trait`, `do/fail`), but there was little opposition to the features themselves. T

These controversies were mainly bikeshedding names and syntax (vs `...`, `any Trait`, `do/fail`), but there was little opposition to the features themselves. There are some often-requested features (specialization, const generics, box syntax, placement new) that even got implemented, but are still unstable, because they aren't good enough. The bar is high. Plenty of RFCs get rejected: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+RFC https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclose... and even more "pre-RFCs" don't even make it past initial discussion in the forums. I think Rust is getting better over time in making ideas polished. The few warts it has so far (e.g. Error description() and cause(), struct literal parsing in `if`) are from before 1.0, and probably wouldn't get past the RFC process used today.