> Good dependency management, a rich package ecosystem, defaults to static binaries which are easy to distribute and a tendency to be fast (even if it’s just the lack of startup overhead) make it a popular choice.
> .....
> Plus Rust can generate a static executable, which is reasonably small, and doesn't require a third party runtime.
People are using a term in a different way than you want them to.
They use static binary to mean “the dependencies I specify in my package manager are all put in the one binary, and it doesn’t require a separately installed runtime to run”, which is totally reasonable, and it is opposed to so many languages that don’t work this way.
You’re using static binary to mean “does not link to anything at all”, which on some systems results in worse portability, since the syscall interface is unstable and linking to libc/libsystem/etc is the only supported way to make syscalls.
You come into the discussion assuming definition B, ignore the fact that they’re using definition A, say that they’re making a big deal about definition B, etc.
There’s no confusion from anyone here but you. We all are using definition A. You’re the only one using definition B. It’s probably better if you just recognize that and move on rather than insisting everyone here is an idiot but you.
