Yeah the only thing is how you parse "eminently usable and comprehensive". The way I read it, it's not saying that Rust's isn't "eminently usable", but that it isn't both of those things. At most it's suggesting that a standard library can't be "eminently usable" if it isn't comprehensive IMO - perhaps it can be extremely usable but not eminently usable. It would be like saying a manual transmission on a car can't be "eminently usable".