It doesn't follow that it's not branching a bit early. Especially since the language five years ago bore little resemblance to what it is currently. I understand the justification that if Rust waits too long it will become irrelevant, but there are certainly plenty of reasons to think it should hold off. For example, the macro system is going to need to be completely rewritten after 1.0.
> I understand the justification that if Rust waits too long it will become irrelevant, but there are certainly plenty of reasons to think it should hold off. For example, the macro system is going to need to be completely rewritten after 1.0.
There are many, many people who have been waiting literally years for Rust to stabilize to start using it. (Just look at the comments in any other HN thread about Rust.)
Rough edges in the macro system (which can be fixed post-1.0 and doesn't need to be completely rewritten) and error handling changes aren't enough reason to force them to keep waiting. It would take years to get every single feature in that people want and it'd be doing a disservice to our community to force that huge group of people to wait even longer. And I feel it too—as someone who uses Rust every day, the issues that keep coming up are minor annoyances compared to the major pain caused by lack of stability.
