Crate metadata constitute a significant proportion of Rust dylibs. It's only needed for compilation; otherwise it just bloats up the size of Rust programs, and, unlike debug info, can't even be easily stripped.
In the case of dylibs, we could move metadata out into a companion file (say, <library>.rsmd), which developers may choose to not distribute if linking to the library is not expected (for example, Rust's own stage0 binaries).
I think this approach would be very congruent with Rust's philosophy of zero cost abstractions. The only downside I can see, is that distribution of dylibs as libraries would become slightly less convenient as there would be two files instead of one.
Crate metadata constitute a significant proportion of Rust dylibs. It's only needed for compilation; otherwise it just bloats up the size of Rust programs, and, unlike debug info, can't even be easily stripped.
In the case of dylibs, we could move metadata out into a companion file (say,
<library>.rsmd), which developers may choose to not distribute if linking to the library is not expected (for example, Rust's own stage0 binaries).I think this approach would be very congruent with Rust's philosophy of zero cost abstractions. The only downside I can see, is that distribution of dylibs as libraries would become slightly less convenient as there would be two files instead of one.