> This is not a knock on Rust It is a knock on Rust. The circumstances of Rust's state of existence in 2023, as a language created in this millennium but not

> This is not a knock on Rust It is a knock on Rust. The circumstances of Rust's state of existence in 2023, as a language created in this millennium but not in the last decade, are absurd. > I doubt it’s possible to do what Rust does—including zero overhead abstractions—in a fast compiling language People packaging releases for software written in Rust and others who are passive consumers and finding themselves downloading some project repo to compile from source for whatever reason (e.g. because the creators don't do binary releases themselves) don't need the Rustlang toolchain to do the things that active contributors to a given project (who want type system diagnostics, etc.) need from it. I'd call this oversight a massive lack of imagination on the part of TPTB, but that would be wrong, because there is no need to imagine the differences between these use cases. They exist. An adequate toolchain for dealing with projects written in Rust—despite the deliberate decisions made during language design that led to these problems—does not.