Of course it does. Many software users are stuck on multiple-year-old toolchains for various reasons, yet these systems still need to be able to handle unicode properly.
> They can easily update it if needed.
No, they cannot. Many users are stuck in older windows versions, linux versions, LTS linux versions, etc. because of their organization or their clients requirements.
Telling a client that you can't develop an app for them because their 2 year old Ubuntu is too old is often not a very successful business model.
> and keep updating the stdlib one.
These updates would only apply to newer Rust toolchains, that many users cannot use. Unless you are suggesting the release of patch versions for the soon to be 100 old Rust toolchains in existence every time the unicode standard is updated.
This is too much trouble and work for little gain, given that one can still use a Rust 1.0 compiler to compile the latest version of the unicode-segmentation crate without problems.
For the record, I also disagree with your assertion that "easily done in rust" should be extended to include "...by importing a third-party framework." In that sense anything is easy to do in any language where a third-party framework exists. I'm confident it's just as easy in go.
Have you tried doing that in C++? Doing that in a cross-platform way (or even in a single platform) is anything but easy, because you don't have a tool like cargo, you have to change your build system, do the dependency resolution manually, etc.
So no, such a library existing does not imply that using that is easy.
In Rust, you just need to write `cargo add unicode-segmentation` once in a project, and then you can directly use the library API. There is literally nothing else for you to do.
That's a pretty low barrier of entry, and something you will need to do 100s of times per project anyway, because the standard library is minimal by design.
If you prefer languages without a minimal standard library, then Rust isn't for you. Go try Python, where half of the standard library has a warning saying "deprecated: use this other better external dependency instead; adding this to the standard library for convenience was the worst idea ever and now we need to maintain all this code forever".
In C++ I can write `vcpkg install whatever`. Yet that does not mean my organization will allow the library.
So no, adding libraries is quite harder than installing them unless you are working in your own projects alone. And even then adding them is never a one line effort.
> If you prefer languages without a minimal standard library, then Rust isn't for you.
There is nothing minimal about Rust's std.
so that current crates work with old version of compilers/toolchains.
this applies here as each new Unicode standard requires an update of the Unicode crate. ideally the best case would be to make it so that in 20 years Rust 1.0 can still use the most updated version of Unicode fragmentation. similarly to how some C libraries insist on C89 compatibility to still work on older systems.
I guess Rust would like it if this never became indispensable but also should be possible
Adding unicode segmentation to the standard library and making all Rust binaries, most of which don't do unicode segmentaiton, 20 Mb larger by unnecessarily bundling the unicode tables, makes no sense.
As you see in the other thread, the problem the parent poster has is that their organizaiton doesn't let them use crates from crates.io.
That's a stupid policy for a language like Rust, and the solution isn't "move all crates of crates.io into the standard library". The solution there is for them to write their own unicode-segmentation code (and async executor, and http stack, and linear algebra, and... the whole world), since that is what their organization wants them to do. That's a stupid policy, but it is their own stupid fault.
Most organizations either allow using crates from crates.io, or have a vetting policy, where you just submit a 1 liner email saying "I need to do unicode-segmentation and there is only one library for that that's used by Firefox here: ...". Somebody then checks licenses and stuff, and gives you approval in a couple of days. If their organization doesn't have such processes, then i'm sorry for them, but I don't see how this is in any way the standard library fault.
Whatever their reasons are "my org doesn't allow us to use cargo" isn't a good reason to move something into the standard library.
So? Use the external library then. One thing does not preclude the other.
> No, they cannot. Many users are stuck in older windows versions, linux versions, LTS linux versions, etc. because of their organization or their clients requirements.
I work in such an organization and no, we cannot use third-party packages. The same way we cannot update our toolchain. So in most cases the point is moot.
> These updates would only apply to newer Rust toolchains, that many users cannot use. Unless you are suggesting the release of patch versions for the soon to be 100 old Rust toolchains in existence every time the unicode standard is updated.
You can provide standard Unicode handling that is good enough for 99% software out there. If you need to be on the bleeding edge, then use the bleeding edge library or rustc.
It is pretty simple, actually!
That's what everybody already does? You are proposing to, instead of doing that, move that library into the standard library where it cannot ever change.
> You can provide standard Unicode handling that is good enough for 99% software out there.
That's already in std? 99% of the code doesn't need to handle unicode grapheme clusters, because it doesn't deal with unicode at all.
You are suggesting moving something into standard that would make unicode software harder to update, and would make the standard library huge (>20mb larger) for all programs (the unicode tables take a lot of binary size), even those that don't use unicode, to try to solve a problem that does not exist.
> I work in such an organization and no, we cannot use third-party packages
If a Rust user cannot write `cargo add unicode-segmentation`, they have bigger problems than not being able to handle grapheme clusters. You can't run async code because you don't have an executor, you can't do http because the standard library doesn't support that, you can't solve partial differential equations, or do machine learning, or pretty much anything interesting with Rust.
That's bad for you, but the solution isn't to make Rust bad for everybody else instead.
If your organization doesn't let you use third-party packages, then write your own: that's what your organization wants you to do.
Some organizations want all code in CamelCase, they can't use the standard library at all. But the solution isn't to make Rust case insensitive, or to prove a 2nd standard library API for those organizations.
99% of the software does not use the entirety of the std. Something is good to be in the std if for that domain it solves the majority of problems, not if everyone uses it.
> You are suggesting moving something into standard that would make unicode software harder to update
It is equally hard to update.
When people say that std libraries are harder to update they refer to changes in interfaces, not incremental updates to tables etc.
> and would make the standard library huge (>20mb larger) for all programs (the unicode tables take a lot of binary size)
Including the tables in every executable even when not used is a broken implementation.
> If a Rust user cannot write `cargo add unicode-segmentation`, they have bigger problems than not being able to handle grapheme clusters.
It is not a "problem". In most commercial software, libraries and versions are vetted. Same applies for all languages. If something is in the std, then it is already in, that is why it is useful.
> That's bad for you, but the solution isn't to make Rust bad for everybody else instead.
I don't see why that makes Rust "bad". It sounds like the opposite to me!
> Some organizations want all code in CamelCase, they can't use the standard library at all.
You are going off-topic to support your point.
