> Stuff that’s unstable isn’t in Rust; that’s why it can be changed or even wholesale removed at any time. The distinction is very important.

I've seen you talk about "writing an OS kernel in Rust", but never heard you phrase that as "writing an OS in kernel in _unstable_ Rust". I've never seen you stating: "correction: what you are using for embedded development, networking, etc. is not Rust, _but unstable Rust_" on any of the many blog posts, announcements, news, etc. about these topics over the past couple of years. I've seen you reply with that argument every now and then, when someone like me downplays the importance of the distinction, but I've never seen you address the source of that behavior.

If the distinction between Rust, and unstable Rust, is important. Why are the people at the top not making it? If you are working on the compiler, servo, etc. you are actually not programming in Rust, but in _unstable_ Rust all of the time. Are they hypocrites? I don't think so.

If I reflect on why I feel that this distinction is not important, the first thing I realize is that I do think the distinction is important. But this distinction is not binary _to me_, as opposed to how you and burntsushi are putting it.

As you mentioned, some unstable features change more than others. There is a wide range of how much continues breakage does using certain unstable features cause downstream users. Some features break every day, some features haven't broken anything in 3 years.

Are unstable features that haven't broken anything in 3 years stable? No, by definition, they aren't.

Are they practical to use? The answer isn't yes or no, the answer is "depends on how much breakage you are willing to accept". We upgrade C++ compiler ~twice per year, and even though we only write 100% standard compliant code, we have to always fix breakage due to the upgrade. Yet I wouldn't say that standard compliant C++ is an unstable programming language.

So, if consider bi-yearly breakage is stable enough for our professional C++ projects in practice, why would I judge Rust stable / unstable features using a different bar? This does not mean that I believe that using unstable (or only stable) features will never cause breakage, since that is impossible.

I've had stable Rust CI jobs break because the standard library added some new trait method, and that caused an ambiguity that broke in my stable Rust code. The answer was: your code was correct, but we are allowed to break it in this way.

In my opinion, it is not "stable vs unstable", but 99% vs what degree of stability does your project need, where choosing more stability than what it needs puts it at a technical disadvantage. It doesn't matter whether one is talking here about Rust unstable features, or using the super unstable next-gen stable Rust web framework.

The stability line does not lie where I or anybody else decides to arbitrarily put it. It lies exactly on the amount of stability that a particular project can tolerate, and it is up to the judgement of the developers of that particular project to find out where that is.

Telling someone that a particular project is not Rust because the stability line for that project does not fall where your line does feels just wrong. Particularly when those doing it don't make that distinctions about themselves and the projects their work on.