2 ms·

There are some voices trying to address this security risk (e.g. the proponents of this new RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3810 https://github.com/

• cogman10 1y ago
  The rust RFC process has, frankly, become somewhat of a CF. There's literally 1000s of RFCs for rust with only a small handful that are integrated. Having this forest, IMO, makes it hard for any given proposal to really stand out. Further, it makes duplicate effort almost inevitable. Rust's RFC process is effectively a dead letter box for most.
  • geodel 1y ago
    I think they can constitute committee for RFC review process(in case there is none today) and based on recommendation multiple domain specific teams/ groups can be created to review RFCs in timely manner.
• dathinab 1y ago
  > isn't much momentum yet to change the status quo. it's complex problem with tons of partial solutions which each have tons of ways to implement them with often their no being a clear winner i.e. it's the kind of hard to solve by consensus problem e.g. the idea of a extended standard library is old (around since the beginning of rust) but for years it was believed it's probably the best to make it a separate independent project/library for various reason. One being that the saying "the standard library is the place where code goes to die" has been quite true for multiple ecosystems (most noticeably python) as a side note ESL wouldn't reduce the LOC count it would increase it as long as you fully measure LOCs and not "skip" over some dependencies