> I didn't publicly complain about it back then (as far as I can recall), but perhaps others did. So the Rust library team switched to using the OS's allocator

> I didn't publicly complain about it back then (as far as I can recall), but perhaps others did. So the Rust library team switched to using the OS's allocator by default. I've honestly never worked in a domain where binary size ever really mattered beyond maybe invoking `strip` on a binary before deploying it, so I try to keep an open mind. That said, this has always been a topic of discussion around Rust[0], and while I obviously don't have anything against binary sizes being smaller, bugs like this do make me wonder about huge changes like switching the default allocator where we can't really test all of the potential side effects; next time, the unintended consequences might not be worth the tradeoff. [0]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=rust%20binary%20size&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...