# Dynamically Linking Rust Crates to Rust Crates

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/dynamically-linking-rust-crates-to-rust-crates/10369>\
**Category:** compiler\
**Created:** [June 6, 2019, 5:36pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/dynamically-linking-rust-crates-to-rust-crates/10369 "2019-06-06T17:36:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![m4b](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@m4b](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/m4b)\
**Post date:** [June 7, 2019, 12:53am UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/dynamically-linking-rust-crates-to-rust-crates/10369/8 "2019-06-07T00:53:31Z")

</div>

> [@Centril](#):
>
> I do not see us moving towards a stable ABI and we do not have current plans for this. Certainly it is not something to seriously entertain in 2019.

This is one of the most worrisome things I’ve read in rust forums in a long while, and I’m quite disappointed in this off the cuff response. I hope it was written quickly and isn’t the full story here.

Imho one of the biggest mistakes C++ ever made was not stabilizing its abi; swift just stabilized theirs and is already reaping the benefits, swift system libraries, the swift runtime, swift UI libraries, all dynamically linked and backwards abi compatible.

I don’t particularly like that one random comment in a thread indicates what appears to be a Lang team member suddenly revealing that a stabilized abi doesn’t appear to be on the table at all; I’d like an official RFC if this is case justifying reasons for why this is, and good technical arguments for something so wide reaching, instead of some breadcrumbs in a forum.

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/dynamically-linking-rust-crates-to-rust-crates/10369)._