In fact, if anything, it’s easier to assume rustc is present than it is to assume cargo is present, because cargo needs rustc, but rustc does not need cargo No. Because if there was rustc+stdlib as a package to install, then we could make the argument. But if Cargo is the only package available with rustc, then there is no point in making this argument. In most distributions there aren’t rustc+stdlib only package. then it would make more sense to assume rustc (which has to be installed to have cargo anyway) The point is, not having Cargo and all the other rest of the systems to install when installing rustc. Sorry, but am I talking Chinese? (and yes, I get impatient.) I think the g++ comparison doesn’t hold here, because it’s not the only way of using the language. I’m not sure what do you even mean by that… I explained it following that quote. I’m trying. You bring g++ as an argument why its not widespread adopted. Because g++ is not the only alternative to something like a package manager like Cargo. Nobody “needs” g++. There are many ways of compiling Cpp, even without using a package manager. So nobody has to use g++ to avoid something like Cargo and all the other stuff.