>"The ecosystem is fragmented. You choose almost every part of the stack yourself, which is powerful for experienced developers and overwhelming for everyone else."

But Rust is aimed at those who want max performance/min ram & cpu and max control? And will inevitably take time to learn. Its a replacement for C++/C

If someone doesn't want that level of performance and control, I would suggest Rust doesn't make sense as many other languages cater for that - c#, Java and Python being prominent examples.

The authors are making a "A batteries-included Rust web framework" but I would argue that majority of people will use Rust as the back end API and a Typescript based front end. (If not Django/Rails/Asp.net etc).

There are so many contributors to the existing web frameworks that I would say it is most likely is that a Rust based one will never be cutting edge.

Out of all the things listed, dependency tree and compile times are the most problematic things I face in Rust projects. As stated at the very end of the article, if you need tighter feedback loop, you might be happier with other languages.

I do feel weird about a major chunk of this article dedicated to ORMs; I guess people think they are still worthwhile, somehow.

A lot of this is still because rust is young. We want a competitive ecosystem so we don’t want to create victors just yet. For web id say follow things in the tokio project for the most cohesion. Tokio ORM runtime and web framework. It all works pretty well together

[dead]