Defining the Rust 2024 edition

It's always your choice, but no, I haven't forgottten (if, maybe, you did). Let's do quick summary, shell we?

1. bluca: Why don't Rust drop everything and provide tools they don't need for fringe use-case they don't even want to support?
2. tialaramex: Rust offers tools for someone who wants to spend time doing that useless work, it just doesn't impose them on everyone
3. pizza: Hey, that work is not entirely useless and if we would impose it on everyone, then there would be some benefits, too!
4. Cyberax: But there would be nasty side-effects, too!
5. gspr: We just want the benefits, they are cool!
6. me: But who would pay the costs?
7. you: Don't you benefit from these features, too?
8. me: Sure, I benefit from these, when I actually use distros that are built on top of these. But I don't use these kinds all that much.
9. you: You lie! You have to use these, you jave have to!
10. me: Nope, I don't lie. I really don't use classic distros which rely of shared libraries and stable ABI all that much.
11. you: Let me play with words to try to save the face!

And here we have bunch of half-truths that you use to try to derail the discussion

While 100% truth on the surface in reality it doesn't support you cause. Yes, the majority of people only want the whole system to just do its thing and keep working… but no, they don't want to see shared libraries (or anything else) being silently upgraded behind their backs! Internet is full of tutorials which people are using to stop these updates that developers and OS makers shove down their throats. And most user never upgrade anything unless forced or unless they know what they get after update (not much these days, times when new versions were sold for money and actually had to demonstrate some kind of viability are gone)

You don't need shared libraries or stable ABI to never upgrade. Here's typical story from the “what real users want”. They just want things that work. Nothing less, nothing more.

Who said I only develop trivial software for one single platform? Software I develop actually is used on most platforms: Windows, MacOS, Android, ChromeOS, even Linux! It's not used on iOS, which makes me a bit atypical (most developers would care about iOS before they would think about ChromeOS), but not too much.

You, on the other hand, are trying, repeatedly, to ignore with prejudice 99% of the picture (most popular OSes and most users) and only concentrate on one, very fringe, case.

You say it with such an extreme conviction like just sprouting these words would make them true. But most users don/t even know what PGP key is and would definitely not try to install it even if told.

They know how to click on link and select the checkbox, though. That's what they expect and that's what they get in the majority of use cases.

Another truth designed the muddle the water: yes, Windows store and Apple's App Store may be classified as “distributions”, if you squint just right, but they don't need shared libraries (and they actually provide stable ABI to app developers while the majority of Linux distros still refuse to do that).

True, but, most of the time, in modern world, they are glorified package managers for C and C++ packages. It's entirely not clear why some other language which, unlike C or C++, already have a standard package manager should deal with them.

Sure, if someone wants/need to merge Rust packages and compiler into these distros then they can do that. It's free world and licenses permit that. But it's entirely not clear why Rust developers should spend time and money supporting something they don't need or want.