Our official website recommends Rocket for serving HTTP

With the third release candidate for 0.5 coming out, there's been another wave of debate about Rocket's maintenance status. The general consensus on this sub seems to be that Rocket should not be recommended to newcomers.

Until recently, I did not know that the official Rust website recommends Rocket for serving HTTP. The reason I found out about this is because I was talking to someone not actively using Rust, but keeping an eye on it. They told me they were still staying away from Rust because the ecosystem is clearly very immature. Obviously surprised, I asked why they thought that. They pointed out that Rocket is the officially recommended back-end framework for Rust (which implies it must be the or one of the best), despite its clear red flags (stable version requires nightly, release candidates for about two years, mostly just one not-very-active maintainer etc.)

I opened two issues hoping to address this:

• rust-lang.org
• arewewebyet.org (This website is also owned by the Rust project, which I didn't know before.)

Both of these websites are only maintained somewhat passively. I received an answer for rust-lang.org and the recommendation is not going to change for now. I completely understand and support the reasoning: The general governance of the website is sort of undefined. It is therefore not clear how content changes should be decided upon. Changing anything would open a can of worms. The currently open governance RFC should hopefully improve the situation.

So yeah, this is not a call for action. I just thought I'd share it here, as much of it was news to me. I hope places like rust-lang.org will soon become more actively maintained, such that newcomers have it as easy as possible to navigate our ecosystem in its current state.