> And don’t tell me about Bytes crate—it should not be a separate crate I'd be interested to hear the author's reasoning behind this, if it does what they want then why not use it? It's small and well written, so I don't think vetting it should be a problem. The rest of the article seems quite sensible, that comment just strikes me as a little odd.
I can't speak for the author of course, but probably their argument is that a systems language should be able to directly manipulate bits and bytes without outside dependencies. I don't know that I agree. A reasonable counter example is that you need library support to allocate memory in C. The argument is that it's a feature to not require C implementations to include dynamic memory allocation because not all projects allow it. My point being that what "should" be in a language usually depends on what you're using it for, and for a general purpose language keeping that very small is at least a consistent design.