[tempay]

> Rust crates re-introduces dependency hell and the potential for supply-chain attacks.

I’m only a casual user of both but how are rust crates meaningfully different from go’s dependency management?

[jaas]

Go has a big, high quality standard library with most of what one might need. Means you have to bring in and manage (and trust) far fewer third party dependencies, and you can work faster because you’re not spending a bunch of time figuring out what the crate of the week is for basic functionality.

[zozbot234]

Rust intentionally chooses to have a small standard library to avoid the "dead batteries" problem. But the Rust community also maintains lists of "blessed" crates to try and cope with the issue of having to trust third-party software components of unknown quality.

[tzekid]

I think it's because go's community sticks close to the standard library:

e.g. iirc. Rust has multiple ways of handling Strings while Go has (to a big extent) only one (thanks to the GC)

[diarrhea]

> Rust has multiple ways of handling Strings

No, none outside of stdlib anyway in the way you're probably thinking of.

There are specialized constructs which live in third-party crates, such as rope implementations and stack-to-heap growable Strings, but those would have to exist as external modules in Go as well.

[adastra22]

What does String/OsSfeing have to do with garbage collection?