Hacker News Reader

That's great, but it's a Rust library, which would be nice to use from Rust, without going through a C FFI layer for the sole purpose of license compliance.

It feels like the Rust ecosystem is a second class citizen due to this license. The GPL or MPL would at least enforce the same rules for everyone, but the LGPL gives a relative advantage to the C and C++ ecosystem over the Rust ecosystem in terms of actually using the library.

View on HN

Static linking good for vendor, dynamic linking good for maintainers. Some distros already made exception from "no bundled libraries" rule for Rust. Now we need to add another exception just for Rust. Maybe, it's time for Rust to catch up and implement dynamic linking instead?

Rust's support for dynamic linking is entirely unrelated to how much of a pain LGPL makes static linking.

But it's entirely related to how much of a pain Rust makes dynamic linking.

Rust does support dynamic linking. But it suffers from the same issues C++ does: Code using generics will get inlined into your final binary, the ABI is unstable so you need to make sure you use the same compiler version, etc...

All those can technically be worked around, but it's more work for the maintainer. Dynamic linking is actually worse for the maintainer here, as it force them to have a stable ABI, which is a lot of work!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com