[Klonoar]

I want to make a sign on the wall that denotes $x days since someone complained about Tokio + Reqwest being bloated and/or making their own design decisions.

I also want to make a campaign to direct people to ureq first so we stop hearing about this every other month. Reqwest is very good and worth just using IMO, but if you really care about this, ureq is pretty battle tested and a fine option for "just give me a fucking HTTP client".

(A selfish third point but ureq needs a happy eyeballs implementation, but that's neither here nor there I guess)

Edit: I did read the article and yes, I am commenting something slightly tangential

[pcwalton]

Yeah, it seems to me like the author just wants a simple HTTP client for Rust that prioritizes simplicity over raw performance and is unhappy with the fact that reqwest isn't that. Though as developers we often wish it were otherwise, given a choice between implementation simplicity and performance most people will choose the latter (as long as correctness isn't sacrificed). So that's why reqwest is more popular and is the first choice that appears when searching for [rust http client] on Google.

Thankfully, ureq exists for those who prefer implementation simplicity, and that's what the author should probably choose.

[Scramblejams]

I read it slightly differently.

> the author just wants a simple HTTP client for Rust that prioritizes simplicity over raw performance

I saw it as:

> the author just wants a safe HTTP client for Rust that prioritizes safety over raw performance

That resonates with me as well.

[mrkline]

That's my main goal - and Rust seems like the language where we can have our cake and eat it too! The standard library has some amazingly performant data structures and algorithms.

Talking to one of the hyper developers, a lot of this machinery was made before it arrived in the stdlib. My response was, "neat, so we can delete the custom stuff now, right? :P" but I suppose any change carries some risk with it.