[e12e]

My impression is that things are settling down now, but I've encountered quite a few rust code bases that required "latest rust" (latest > 1.0) - and even "nightly".

Not to say that rust-the-language hasn't stabilized, but I think the point about D being (way) more mature still stands?

(Note, it's a good thing that people are writing code to test/work with/exercise latest rust/nightly etc -- but just because I can be fairly sure code I write today will compile tomorrow (which is good!) -- that doesn't mean "all of rust land" is stable).

Please don't take this of critique of all the hard work going into rust -- the only way this wouldn't be a thing was if rust core was a dead project.

[ed: To add to that - it might well be that all of the projects I've seen lately where I've had to wake up multirust[1] and do a little dance before my beautiful random code from random person on the Internet have been willing to compile -- have all been bad samples of rust code - but they're still part of the landscape of rust code one encounters in the wild.

[1] https://github.com/brson/multirust (eats a bit of space (~200MB per version of the compiler/toolchain) - but in my very limited testing works nicely!)]

[Manishearth]

> quite a few rust code bases that required "latest rust" (latest > 1.0) - and even "nightly".

In my experience most of these either use old features which have a stable counterpart, or use compile-time codegen (there are stable libraries to do this now, though they aren't as ergonomic as plugging into the compiler directly)

[steveklabnik]

Yeah, I mean, I don't take this as a critique, it's the same for basically every language. When you build a project with a new version, you might take advantage of the new features. Such is life. :)