> My point is that in my opinion the Rust team has chosen to get the mid-term boost of Rust popularity at the expense of the long-term Rust health.
I don't think a conscious decision of that sort was made? My impression is that at the time the road taken was understood to be the correct solution and not a compromise. Is that wrong?
The decision was made 3 years ago and at the time it was indeed a good one, but the situation has changed and the old decision was not (in my opinion) properly reviewed. See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26408524
I don't think a conscious decision of that sort was made? My impression is that at the time the road taken was understood to be the correct solution and not a compromise. Is that wrong?