Yes. The article also says: >Having a large standard library doesn't mean that the programmer shouldn't be able to swap out implementations easily as needed. B

Yes. The article also says: >Having a large standard library doesn't mean that the programmer shouldn't be able to swap out implementations easily as needed. But all that is required is for the standard library to define an interface along with the standard library implementation. But "Just have the standard library provide an interface" also fails when the interface itself is not guaranteed to be correct. In Rust for example, the original definition of the Future trait in the futures 0.1 crate was incompatibly different from what it eventually became in the futures 0.3 crate, and the futures 0.3 version is what was imported into libstd as `std::future::Future`. If the 0.1 version had been defined in libstd it would not have worked with async-await, so either it would've stifled async-await development, or it would have to be deprecated but still kept around for backward-compatibility alongside the newer trait.