3 ms·

On the other hand- crates.io + the toolchain make it way easier for fixes to propagate outward into the ecosystem, and then for new builds to be created with th

On the other hand- crates.io + the toolchain make it way easier for fixes to propagate outward into the ecosystem, and then for new builds to be created with them (even for multiple platforms at once) There's a huge list of tradeoffs between dynamic and static linking, and Rust is betting that in today's world, with modern tooling, internet availability, hardware speeds, and memory size, the benefits of static linking outweigh the costs. I guess time will tell But- traditionally Linux has really leaned into the opposite approach, so it'll be interesting to see how that dissonance plays out, and whether one or both is forced to compromise, as Rust gets more embedded in the Linux ecosystem

gspr 4y ago
> On the other hand- crates.io + the toolchain make it way easier for fixes to propagate outward into the ecosystem, and then for new builds to be created with them (even for multiple platforms at once) As a Rust fan who subscribes to the classical Linux distro model (and even exclusively gets his Rust crates from there), I disagree. What you suggest comes with a cost, namely having to accept software in constant flux. To me, that cost in unacceptably big. I write a bit more about this gripe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32925491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32925491