Today i encountered a person who was not at all impressed
in with rust, they got that impression implicitly through fedora's crate packaging guidelines, which makes rust able to be compiled offline within their own package management system.
They were convinced that, because rust does not allow dynamic linking by default, i.e. on crate-level, it had no future in systems programming and "couldnt be treated seriously".
I personally wanted to ask about the dynamic linking bit, while i somewhat agree to the fact that rust in native package managers seems... odd, i also cant exactly respond to it, mainly because i don't know what the story is between cargo package managing, and native package managing.
They went on to argue that that was a huge flaw of rust, comparing cargo to Golang's dependency management, Ruby's, PHP's, Node.JS', and shunning all of them while upholding the fact that native dependency managers were better attuned for the future.
Now, i'm not here to perpetuate the argument (i'm just repeating it for context), but i'm rather curious about a few points;
What is the story between native package managers and cargo? How well do both work with eachother, and what are some big topics or articles i can read for more background on how both have a history? What is the community consensus wrt the future of native package managers vs cargo? To embrace it, or to ignore it?
Are there any plans to work on, or treat, crates as individual dynamic libraries, and have them able to be distributed as such? I imagine discussion happened early on wrt if rust should use native package managers, or it should have its own, if it does exist, can i have some links to that? What are some general "modern common sense" arguments or reasonings to not or to consider dynamic libraries for development? What is rust's community consensus on this?