> Who said a standard library can't make breaking changes?

The std making a breaking change is the language making a breaking change. Most mainstream languages guarantee stability, certainly Rust.

> your program is smaller

How so? It doesn't matter if the code is in std or a crate.

> better security because a random kid can't pwn your deps, quality and interoperability

That's exactly what I said: you don't need bigger std, you just need more official crates.

> Who said a standard library can't make breaking changes?

I don't want my language creating work for me. "Batteries included" is a feature of higher level languages. Rust is going to live for a very long time, probably beyond all of our lifetimes, and it needs to endure fads without picking up baggage and liabilities.

Rust could have a mandate where certain crates are "blessed" as recommendations. This could come with additional review, oversight, support, documentation, etc.

The Cargo.toml spec should have the ability to limit direct and transitive dependency count and depth. (As well as other things, like "nopanic" annotations/guarantees.)

The Crates.io repo should grow namespaces so we don't typo squat popular packages. It's much harder to miss organization names changing than package names changing.