Whether this is better or worse seems to be a matter of contention for a lot of people, but it certainly poses a challenge for supply-chain auditing. I suspect for Rust to truly ever replace C++ in its domain, the ecosystem is going to need to come up with something like boost so you can grab one library that does all the things nearly any program wants (regex, serialization, cli opts, etc) but that don't get included in the core language's stdlib.
Yes, but then you are stuck with glibc + kitchen sink and GNU code quality, which is atrocious.
Musl is far superior as a libc, but most Linux software is written for glibc and has quirks that make porting hard.
Anyway, GLibc is just better, both in terms of performance (algorithms are more optimized, at the cost of a bigger executable size) and in terms of available features.
Not only for that. As much as I love copyleft, I'm really happy that musl exists so that I can easily test my programs locally for portability. Compiling stuff with different compilers and libraries exposes at once all sorts of weird bugs before you get to publish your codes.
Nope. It’s better at some things but with so many caveats that this is just dumb to claim.
The comment I replied to is less than 100 characters long plus a command line invocation.
One of these two has spent more time thinking about whether some dependencies are needed.
The answer to your question "How come a simple thing is more complex than I first thought?" is: "Because you've spent less time thinking about it than the author".