The discussion highlights significant new features in Rust 1.100, such as the stabilized never type and unused dependency warnings, while sparking a substantive debate over whether the language's lack of a stable ABI is a necessary trade-off for its generic system or an impediment to library distribution. Participants clash between those viewing the current source-only model as sufficient and those arguing that a native stable ABI is essential for practical binary interoperability.
66 readable replies · Supporting reply 1 · Supporting reply 2 · Supporting reply 3 · Supporting reply 4rust-lang
libs-team
Rust2022–2026
rust-lang / libs-team
libs-team
The home of the library team
11Distinct people
11Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
190GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
The home of the library team
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 5:03:38 AM UTC.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year11 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2022-07-22 15:20:01 UTC to 2026-08-11 15:54:29 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesMEmempko·Sep 20, 2022
Compare Stepanov's brilliant design of the STL to Rust's current reworking of their 'binary search api'. https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/81
Maybe 'memory safety' isn't the most important thing in this world. To me, writing software that does useful things in the simplest and most correct way is what matters. I get the feeling it's harder to understand my program's correctness with Rust (I mean algorithmic correctness). The C++ standard library has time and space complexity for every algorithm. I'm not seeing that's the case with Rust (correct me if I'm wrong).
In It's time to halt starting any new projects in C/C++Rust MSRV Policy for Libc Crate
2 points · Open discussion> How mature does a feature need to be before it's permitted to use them?
Each project has its own answer for that question; the acronym for it is MSRV (Minimum Supported Rust Version), and there's a field in the Cargo.toml for it ("rust-version"). It's not unusual to have the CI test the project with both the MSRV and the latest stable Rust version, to catch accidental use of new features. Unfortunately, there's as of yet no consensus on how to choose the MSRV. Some projects are more conservative ("the MSRV has to be at least one year old", "the MSRV is whatever comes with the oldest still supported LTS of Linux distros X and Y", "I set the MSRV once in the past and don't intend to increase it ever"), some projects are more aggressive ("we support only latest Rust and the previous one"), other projects are somewhere in the middle.
(Edit:
Read the rest
there's at the moment a very interesting discussion about the MSRV of the "libc" crate, which a lot of other crates depend on, and MSRV in general, at https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/72)