The group said that each of these attributes was necessary for versatility across domains. However, when taken too far, or when other attributes are missing, they can become an obstacle, the group noted. One example cited was Rust’s powerful type system, which allows modeling the application domain and prevents bugs but sometimes feels more complex than the problem itself. Another example cited was async Rust, which has fueled a huge jump in using Rust to build network systems but feels “altogether more difficult” than sync Rust. A third obstacle, the group said, was the wealth of crates on crates.io, which are a key enabler but also offer a “tyrrany of choice” that becomes overwhelming. Ways are needed to help users navigate the crates.io ecosystem.
The group recommended creating an RFC that defines the goals sought as work is done on Rust. The RFC should cover the experience of using Rust in total (language, tools, and libraries). “This RFC could be authored by the proposed User Research team, though it’s not clear who should accept it—perhaps the User Research team itself, or perhaps the leadership council,” the group said.
