Like, in the C world, there's a difference between "the C specification has problems" and "GCC incorrectly implements the C specification". You can make statements about what "the C language" does or doesn't guarantee independently of any specific implementation.
But "the Rust language" is not a specification. It's just a vague ideal of things the Rust team is hoping their compiler will be able to achieve. And so "the Rust language" gets marketed as e.g. having a type system that guarantees memory safety, when in fact no such type system has been designed -- the best we have is a compiler with a bunch of soundness holes. And even if there's some fundamental issue with how traits work that hasn't been resolved for six years, that can get brushed off as merely a compiler bug.
This propagates down into things like Rust's claims about backwards compatibility. Rust is only backwards-compatible if your programs are written in the vague-ideal "Rust language". The Rust compiler, the thing that actually exists in the real world, has made a lot of backwards-incompatible changes. But these are by definition just bugfixes, because there is no such thing as a design issue in "the Rust language", and so "the Rust language" can maintain its unbroken record of backwards-compatibility.
Is it getting brushed off as merely a compiler bug? At least if I'm thinking of the same bug as you [0] the discussion there seems to be more along the lines of the devs treating it as a "proper" language issue, not a compiler bug. At least as far as I can tell there hasn't been a resolution to the design issue, let alone any work towards implementing a fix in the compiler.
The soundness issue that I see more frequently get "brushed off as merely a compiler bug" is the lifetime variance one underpinning cve-rs [1], which IIRC the devs have long decided what the proper behavior should be but actually implementing said behavior is blocked behind some major compiler reworks.
> has made a lot of backwards-incompatible changes
Not sure I've seen much evidence for "a lot" of compatibility breaks outside of the edition system. Perhaps I'm just particularly (un)lucky?
> because there is no such thing as a design issue in "the Rust language"
I'm not sure any of the Rust devs would agree? Have any of them made a claim along those lines?
Yes, this thread contains an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45587209 . (I linked the same bug you did in the comment that that's a reply to.)
The Rust team may see this as a language design issue internally, and I'd be inclined to agree. Rust's outward-facing marketing does not reflect this view.
