| > I don't see why that makes Rust "bad". And this is why people suggesting what you are suggesting never manage to achieve the change. > 99% of the software does not use the entirety of the std Most Rust software uses most of it. > You are suggesting moving something into standard that would make unicode software harder to update How do you update the unicode tables for those stuck with Rust 1.0 ? If you are going to make this claims, back them up. > It is not a "problem". In most commercial software, libraries and versions are vetted. Same applies for all languages. If something is in the std, then it is already in, that is why it is useful. So your organization does support third-party packages, you are just to lazy to ask for vetting ? That's not what you claimed above (you claimed that your organization does not support third-party packages at all). The answer to this is simple, ask your organization to vet this library. If that's too complicated and takes too much effort, improve your organization's process. Suggesting that only because you are too lazy to vet a library that library should be in standard is a laughable proposal. Think about the trade-offs, evaluate them, weight them, and if you still think doing so is worth it, write an RFC. The process for putting things into standard is open. But if your only argument is "me,me,me,me" that's not going to go anywhere. |