[chandlerc1024]

(Carbon lead for context)

I think you're missing the point of the example in a major way...

Personally, I care about finding ways to support a bunch of these other use cases where we can and in good ways. Especially things like build times, dynamically loaded plugins, and vendored libraries. I think we can and _need_ to find reasonable solutions to those.

The specific example is the only one called out because it's the only one that is fundamentally a non-goal.

The other use cases I think we can find good ways to support, but they may not look like a stable ABI for the entire language. Maybe a designated subset or surface which is designed to have long-term link compatibility in some way, etc. Removing that specific use case is important because it opens up more candidate solutions in the space.

And to be clear, this isn't a straw-person use case. This specific wording and use case was a response to that use case being actively supported by the C++ committee on several occasions.